3) Derivative works are not going to encompass plugins and device drivers that are designed to be linked from off-the-shelf, unmodified, programs. If a GPL-covered program is designed to accept separately designed plugin programs, you don't create a derivative work by merely running such a plugin under it, even if you have to look at the source code to learn how.
I think this is also expressly prohibited in GPL, but allowed in LGPL. So, I believe plugin system should also be discouraged in GPL, otherwise it will make a "major loophole" (like making a main program out of a plugin).
No, this sort of means that when you code a GPL program and specifically define a "plug-in" interface, that any binary that "plugs" in is not a derivative. In copyright terms, the fact that a "plug-in" interface is well-defined is enough to remove derivative status. In fact, a guiding principle here is that if there is a wall separating dependences (like a defined plug-in interface), then that wall removes derivative status.
You have already argued that this creates a loophole - I think the legal view will be that you cannot take GPL'd software and make a plug-in interface out of an existing interface for the purpose of removing derivative status. However, adding a novel plug-in interface to GPL'd software would be seen in a different light.
Remember, you have to take the point of view of someone looking at copyright history and trying to apply its law to software, and not the view of someone who wants to make the GPL as powerful as possible. A well-defined dependence "wall" is adequate to remove derivative status. If that creates loopholes, there are other ways to address that. I can't help it if the law ends up looking like a mess.
There are, however, some guiding principles. One of the is that of the non-unique well-defined interface. For example, if a program only used POSIX libc calls, it is not a derivative work of any C library it uses. This independence is because you can change the C library freely, and the program's function doesn't change. So we can easily establish that libraries that adhere to a spec, for which multiple DIFFERENT libraries exist to fulfill that spec, do not make derivatives of programs that dynamically link to them.
Static linking I think is highly likely to make the calling program a derivative, since the library forms part of the functional binary.
Now, on to dynamic linking with a unique library. This case is the REALLY interesting one. Some people argue that inclusion of the header files makes something a derivative. This is utter nonsense. A header file is made specifically so that a calling program may include it. Also, you could replace the header file with another file that provided the same functionality trivially (it defines an interface, a function, and it not really expression in the same sense that the main program is). I don't think this argument will ever fly. But, in this case the program cannot function at all without one specific library. So, it is likely a judge would rule that it is dependent in copyright, and a derivative. Note that if someone coded a clone replacement library, then the dependence vanishes, as does the derivative nature of the work. Larry Rosen disagrees with this point of view, b/c he claims libraries are MADE to be linked with. But, this point is still to be decided by a judge.
There are other cases that are clear. Plug-in interfaces, for example, are like walls that separate dependences. The interface is well-defined so that no one on either side of the interface needs to know anything except the interface itself. Not a derivative.
As you can see, the rules are not hard and fast, and there is a slippery slope to tread.
If I'm making no noise, and have an easy grasp of the course material, who says I have to sit there or even take notes unless the class requires participation? I've had a disdain for professors who either require attendance and/or "undevided attention" when I know the course material or no participation in class ins necessary.
I bet your parents have a disdain for you when you go to class intending not to receive as much as possible from your professor.
Basically, the high cost of tuition exists so that professors can teach you. The absolutely highest transfer of information comes in class. The best correlate of high grades in college is class attendance and participation. You simply cannot learn as effectively any other way.
And if you grasp it easily and attendance is mandatory, listen up anyway. You are paying for it. You pay anywhere from $50 to $200 per lecture, JUST TO LISTEN TO THE PROFESSOR RAMBLE. Make him earn it. Listen. Ask tough questions. Get good grades.
A trademark only prevents use of a term as a commercial label, not as a descriptive term
Trademarks are defined wrt a specific market. Just because Microsoft trademarked "Windows" doesn't imply anything about the use of the term in different contexts - such as "Blake's Windows" as the name for a store that replaces glass windows.
The use of the term IBM-compatible is generally fine as long as it is noted that the IBM in IBM-compatible refers to the trademarked name owned by IBM. Then, you are actually using the trademark to refer to the trademarked item - which is fine. It is not fine to call something else an IBM computer and use the term IBM to market it.
Re:It's Microsoft, what did you think would happen
on
Lindows Legal Challenge
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
What are you talking about? The article is about trademark law. Back in the day, Microsoft was granted a trademark on the name Windows. Now, you can't trademark a word commonly associated with the product you are making. For example, I couldn't trademark the name "ice cream" for my ice cream product. The word is commonly used for that already, and this has two negative effects. One, I gain value by associating my trademark with the words defining the product. Two, I shut out all my competitors from being able to market "ice cream".
In Microsoft's case, the answer will be pretty clear. The trademark on "Windows" should never have been granted in the first place. It was already a common name in computer software. The fact that Lindows changes one letter is irrelevant if the Windows trademark is invalid.
And the preliminary injunction said it was invalid, and allowed Lindows to use its name pending trial. Expect Microsoft to get slammed. But don't worry - this will not affect trademarks on WindowsXP, Windows2000, Windows3.1, or Windows NT, each of which can stand alone as its own trademark.
But the generic term Windows will be gone. And plenty of other computer manufacturers will be quick to use Windows in the names of their products.
Peripheral myelin hits its peak around a year of age - it basically allows walking because feedback from the legs gets in sync with the motor commands.
But various parts of the brain continue to change myelin status through the first 6-7 years at least.
However, the lack of myelin doesn't imply the lack of coherent cerebral activity (although it certainly doesn't help).
Re:Why should you even need land line service at a
on
DSL Amidst Phone Wars
·
· Score: 2
I agree with you in sentiment.
Here in San Francisco at mi casa, if you want high speed internet for any kind of reasonable price, you have to get DSL.
If you get DSL, SBC will receive $40 US per month. When DSL was getting started, it was perceived that Pacbell (now SBC) would monopolize it rapidly, b/c they own all the lines. So, they HAVE to allow any ISP to use the line for DSL, provided SBC receives $40/month.
Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that SBC will take in 80% of all revenue associated with high speed internet here. No matter who the ISP is.
What is worse, you can't get rid of the land line. SBC claims the $40/month is only supplemental to phone service (which is, ironically, less expensive for line charges than DSL). So unless you spend at least $25 or so per month for minimal phone service, and $40 for the DSL line, you can't get a line for DSL. Add another $10 for minimal PPPoE ISP service, and you are pretty close to an $80 monthly bill.
Now, you might think cable is cheaper, but the AT&T cable internet offered in town is between $40 and $50 per month. If you don't pay for cable also, it costs $60/month (they cannot turn off basic cable if you get cable high speed internet - so you pay for minimal cable whether you want it or not).
My house can't even get the cable. I am thinking seriously about colluding with my neighbors to have 4-5 houses using my DSL line.
This is all a deck of cards that should come crashing down mightily if someone gets set up to offer wireless internet in town in any sort of reasonable fashion.
Re:Another Redhat, more Microsoftalike?
on
New Red Hat Beta
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Can you say me where i can get WMP for RedHat please ?
NASA could contribute more to US technology and commerce if they didn't waste as much money trying to figure out how to lift people's carcasses into orbit.
Except when that technology revolves around how to keep people alive, warm, oxygenated, etc. Let's face it - the concept that a man could walk on the moon is attractive for lots of reasons, including in the long term the idea that man may someday be able to live in outer space.
As for boosting robotics, or AI instead, I am pretty certain they got boosts too, but heavy reliance on computers in the aircraft was a pretty foreign concept in the late 60s. Robotics did get large boosts.
Put a man on Mars. Let's see where it goes from there.
NASA got itself into this problem by presenting itself as a frontier organization, a group of heroic explorers. And to maintain that image, they are wasting lots of money on useless projects like the space shuttle and the space station.
The technology bleed-through from the moon explorations has paved the way for things of wide variety, like Oakley glassed, Tang, ceramic insulators, new engine fuels and designs, etc.
I wouldn't call it useless. Instead, it forms one significant reason the USA has many technological advantages. All that technology has now become part of daily life.
Presenting the space missions with "heroes" also has advantages in maintaining public support, so that the massive technology thrust funded by NASA can continue to contribute to US technology commerce.
Star Office will be ubiquitious. It also works with linux, but linux will not be ubiquitious.
In other words, they are moving to Star Office freely, or for a minimal price on CD. Hardly the same as a non-Microsoft workplace, more like non-MSOffice workplace.
Still, not a bad start.
Now if they could just set up a Christiania in San Francisco...
you're retarded. You NEVER did more than a 1-1 trade. If you didn't have a SBD to trade back, you did a B&P (blanks and postage) trade or joined a vine
No, I never did. My brother, however, has several hundred dead shows on tape, and sometimes he would find something he wanted, and would have to spend several more trades to get whatever it was the person offering the item of interest wanted. Pure barter. That is all changing now, though, with the internet. Sound board copies of shows 10-15 years old are becoming REALLY common, whereas they used to be incredibly rare.
Anyway, to the point. Phish's move will increase the quality and quantity of their live concert performance tapings, and will make money doing it. If the Grateful Dead were right, this makes Phish money in concert attendance, in merchandising, and in sales of studio albums.
And I think the GD were right, but time will tell.
This is totally in the Grateful Dead tradition of viral marketing.
The Dead let people tape and trade their shows, but you couldn't sell them. The traders developed a barter system, and soundboard copies of shows were top dog in the barter system. You could get 3-4 non-soundboard shows for one soundboard.
So now Phish will provide people with REALLY high quality bootlegs of shows for $10 (I guess bootleg isn't really the right term). People will buy them. For certain. And this puts MORE Phish music out there, and makes people more likely to go to their concerts and buy their studio releases - and that is the real goal. They know people will copy and trade these shows for free - again - that is the goal. They just give anyone an easy way to get any concert for $10. That is a lot of value compared to checking bartering message boards and trying to come up with a valuable enough trade.
A smart business move by Phish. The Dead made their shows tradeable, and had more concert attendance in the 1980s and 1990s than any other band. They made a lot of cash from their shows, and from their merchandising.
I am a standard member of the club, and I purchased the DVD set of Mandrake 9.0, because it was worth paying for.
Good for you.
But you ought to be able to see the writing on the wall. Mandrake's business model is failing. You just can't justify the amount they spend on development and packaging costs with the amount they make selling Open Source software. And if you support them now, you better expect to dole out even MORE cash in another 6 months, more after that....
Heck, RedHat is having a hard time, too, but they are at least treading water. In another five years the only full distro will be Debian, which is actually strengthening over time, as opposed to the weakening coming from Mandrake and the others. The reason is that you cannot make enough money selling Open Source software to support a company based on packaging. However, the collective community can do it quite well - thus Debian and its volunteers survive.
It remains to be seen if companies like RedHat will be able to morph themselves into support companies based on Debian packaging (a HUGE win financially for RedHat - lose the devel and packaging costs, zero in on the cash flow).
Note: I could care less how much you like Mandrake. Lots of quality products fail financially, and that is not a judgment on their quality, but on their market value. And, pretty soon, that market value will be less than zero.
Wow - that is kinda close to the standard for our field. Except that editors get paid. But they don't edit so much as manage the editing process - they decide who reviews and edits which paper, and whether it is acceptable for publication.
Students can almost 100% of the time receive an OK from a journal to publish their article as part of their theses if it is cited appropriately and published in entirety in the thesis.
Journals usually typeset the paper. To do this they start by importing everything into Word. Why - it is a standard. Absolute crap for typesetting, but that is the way it goes. Some journals are getting adept at using TeX and PDF.
The important service the journal provide is peer-review. This process provides some assurances about quality, and varies from journal to journal. Often, in some fields, the most read journals are not the best reviewed - yet they are the most desireable in which to publish because the whole point of publishing is getting as many people as possible to read your work. But really poorly read journals invariably have weak review processes, since no one is going to read the paper anyway.
So different journals provide an important sorting mechanism: they sort papers by quality and by field. This sorting process dominates how we think about our colleagues. If an online publishing format is to work, it will HAVE to be better at sorting, which generally means the peer-review process must correspond better to the coverage of readership - better papers MUST appear in the more read online journals.
And, in the end, there is no escaping it. The quality of the whole process is dominated by the quality of the scientists that can peer-review the papers. And for this - the online journal may think about re-inventing manuscript review to make peer-review open and work consistently.
Exposing the animal's brain and forcing it to lead a life with a metal skullcap bolted to its skull is quite different than teaching fido to fetch and using treats as reinforcement.
The animal would not even exist except that it was bred for research purposes. The animal's brain is not exposed - there are small burrholes made through which electrodes with 10-20 microns of exposed metal are inserted.
From a behavioral viewpoint, the two techniques are inter-related. Activation of brain pathways with microelectrodes is just a step closer in potency compared with Scooby-snacks.
No service dog is ever inflicted with pain to train it.
Actually, most of them use choke collars at some point in training. Many of my friends that love their dogs use them, too. Pain is a part of life not just for lab animals, but for dogs and humans too. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. Now, it is a very good thing to minimize pain and suffering, and that is a responsibility of every person who interacts with animals. Or humans.
Handlers/trainers bend over backwards to create a loving, caring environment for their animals.
The environment for RoboRat is similarly caring. The rats are kept in clean environments, are well-fed, and have their health checked regularly and attended to. It is quite a step up from the wild rat. And, quite frankly, rats who have their reward pathways activated are REALLY HAPPY RATS.
NASA can build robots and send them many, many, many,..., many lightyears away to distance planets. They can then remotely control them and obtain rock samples, pH test data, and brightness/contrast/luminosity metrics. They can use them to search as well, locating various pools of high-resource lime and calcium areas. Why can't we do this in this instance? A $20 Lego robot kit could almost get the job done if you just throw in a camera that can sense photons. But no, let's just electrocute rats' brains with RF signals because it's "cool".
Rats are REALLY cheap - about $15 before you add a few hundred dollars of hardware to make it RoboRat.
And, rats have built in locomotion that is more advanced than anything NASA or any other robotic creator has ever created. It is the best tool for the job. Best performance for the price. Kinda like an avalanche-dog on a smaller scale.
Dogs and cats ALREADY serve humans after being trained using known reinforcement techniques. This is not really any different - different reinforcer, that is all.
Note. Using Crossover is not a Windows Terminal Server environment. At all. Windows Terminal Server is a specifically defined product.
You do not need any license to connect a PC to a linux X server. There is a great deal of ambiguity as to whether the current licensing would require one office license for each concurrent user, or one for each piece of hardware that will display it. The version of office is ALWAYS run on the linux machine, it is just displayed and captures mouse/keyboard input from elsewhere.
Now, device is defined by Microsoft to mean anyplace it will contact any piece of hardware, but it is non-trivial to draw the line. Does a diskless client require a license ? How about if multiple people use wireless keyboards, monitors, and mice, but run it off the same machine ? Is then each wireless device required to have a license? Or just each combination (keyboard, mouse, monitor)? Or is the whole wireless net that all talks to one machine considered under one license?
Now, how is a thin linux client different from a wireless keyboard/monitor/mouse combination?
I think it would be fairly easy to convince a judge that per device licensing in a networked environment is completely ambiguous, whereas concurrent user licenses are straightforward.
Well, some details are found Here at Eweek. The study was done by IDC.
The study compared the five-year TCO of Windows 2000 server environments with Linux server environments from multiple Linux vendors at some 100 different North American companies.
"The TCO metrics are described in terms of five-year costs for 100 users. IDC's TCO methodology... takes into account the costs of acquiring and supporting the hardware and software required for each of these specific workloads. Costs are broken out into six categories: hardware, software, staffing, downtime, IT staff training, and outsourcing costs," says the white paper.
You can pretty much bet that Microsoft defined a limited space for the study and let IDC produce a white paper, knowing in advance it would be fodder for press releases. It mostly comes down to management tools for some tasks in which Mickeysoft has GUI tools.
Of course, defining 5 year TCO for an operating system that will not be supported for 5 years is a little silly...
Configuring Unix for security is harder than windows because windows offers you niceties such as the group policy editor and heavy use of ACLs. While various linux filesystems support ACLs, no one is using them yet. I'm sure it's coming, though, which will go a long way towards ease of administration.
This is nice if you are trying to protect your system from your own users.
However, if you are interested in protected it from remote attacks, linux is MUCH easier. Iptables (for firewalling) is built in for free, and scripts to configure it are freely available. Security updates are quickly available and easy to apply. Linux wins, it is a no brainer.
A competent admin can make either OS secure, from local or remote attack. My subjective estimate is that Unix/linux admins can handle far more boxes per person than Windows admins, though.
The fine-grained locking improvements on SMP will make it noticeably better for SMP boxes.
A very big improvement is that IDE has been parallelized, meaning that if you use multiple IDE devices at once you will see a "night and day" difference in performance.
If you are uniprocessor and all SCSI and already use low-latency patches, well, as you were.
Again, the fair-use clause concerns redistribution, not modification.
Right. Modifying the program for personal use is a no-brainer.
The only issue, really, is whether you have a default right to re-distribute patches without permission from the copyright author whose work you patch. And, it would probably come down to the opinion of the judge. Are you selling the patch ? That works against you. But you unquestionably INCREASE the market for the work, so that works for you. The patch includes NONE of the original copyrighted material, which works VERY strongly for you. I think that probably, if the patch is freely distributed, it would be considered fair use.
But in copyright law, the judge gets to decide how to interpret fair use. So the specifics are important, too.
... states that right to modify a covered work is a right reserved to the copyright owner.
There is also fair use, and if your modifying the program didn't impact the market for the program, or the reputation of the author, it is almost unthinkable that a judge would decide that your modifications were illegal. There really is no "set in stone law" - each case will depend on the considerations relevant to fair use and the particulars of the case. It is not like stealing where the answer is clear cut. There are mitigating factors that, in this case, make the answer REALLY clear.
Note that all of this pre-assumes that the author takes you to court. And, in such a case, in as much as DJB has publicly stated many times that he thinks you can and should (if you want to) modify his programs for your use, the point is really really moot.
Copyright law is civil law. There could certainly be cases in which modifications of source code for personal use would be illegal. But, in general, if your personal use modifications have no impact on the market for the copyrighted work or the reputation of the author, it will be fair use. Just like writing in the margins of a book is fair use. The book is no longer the same, but you are the only person using it, so the author has zero impact. It is really a little silly to waste so much breath on it.
On the subject of freedoms, I agree that the right to re-distribute derivative works is a big freedom. The GNU freedoms are simpler though - the relevant right is the right to distribute your improvements of the program to others. In the case of DJB software, you can do that.
Like his licenses or not, I am going to keep using it. Well, really, that is a no brainer. The stuff works and I never need to look at it. That is the highest praise an admin could give any piece of software.
Slashdot Mirror
From Rosen:
3) Derivative works are not going to encompass plugins and device drivers that are designed to be linked from off-the-shelf, unmodified, programs. If a GPL-covered program is designed to accept separately designed plugin programs, you don't create a derivative work by merely running such a plugin under it, even if you have to look at the source code to learn how.
I think this is also expressly prohibited in GPL, but allowed in LGPL. So, I believe plugin system should also be discouraged in GPL, otherwise it will make a "major loophole" (like making a main program out of a plugin).
No, this sort of means that when you code a GPL program and specifically define a "plug-in" interface, that any binary that "plugs" in is not a derivative. In copyright terms, the fact that a "plug-in" interface is well-defined is enough to remove derivative status. In fact, a guiding principle here is that if there is a wall separating dependences (like a defined plug-in interface), then that wall removes derivative status.
You have already argued that this creates a loophole - I think the legal view will be that you cannot take GPL'd software and make a plug-in interface out of an existing interface for the purpose of removing derivative status. However, adding a novel plug-in interface to GPL'd software would be seen in a different light.
Remember, you have to take the point of view of someone looking at copyright history and trying to apply its law to software, and not the view of someone who wants to make the GPL as powerful as possible. A well-defined dependence "wall" is adequate to remove derivative status. If that creates loopholes, there are other ways to address that. I can't help it if the law ends up looking like a mess.
That this is a complete mess, legally.
There are, however, some guiding principles. One of the is that of the non-unique well-defined interface. For example, if a program only used POSIX libc calls, it is not a derivative work of any C library it uses. This independence is because you can change the C library freely, and the program's function doesn't change. So we can easily establish that libraries that adhere to a spec, for which multiple DIFFERENT libraries exist to fulfill that spec, do not make derivatives of programs that dynamically link to them.
Static linking I think is highly likely to make the calling program a derivative, since the library forms part of the functional binary.
Now, on to dynamic linking with a unique library. This case is the REALLY interesting one. Some people argue that inclusion of the header files makes something a derivative. This is utter nonsense. A header file is made specifically so that a calling program may include it. Also, you could replace the header file with another file that provided the same functionality trivially (it defines an interface, a function, and it not really expression in the same sense that the main program is). I don't think this argument will ever fly. But, in this case the program cannot function at all without one specific library. So, it is likely a judge would rule that it is dependent in copyright, and a derivative. Note that if someone coded a clone replacement library, then the dependence vanishes, as does the derivative nature of the work. Larry Rosen disagrees with this point of view, b/c he claims libraries are MADE to be linked with. But, this point is still to be decided by a judge.
There are other cases that are clear. Plug-in interfaces, for example, are like walls that separate dependences. The interface is well-defined so that no one on either side of the interface needs to know anything except the interface itself. Not a derivative.
As you can see, the rules are not hard and fast, and there is a slippery slope to tread.
If I'm making no noise, and have an easy grasp of the course material, who says I have to sit there or even take notes unless the class requires participation? I've had a disdain for professors who either require attendance and/or "undevided attention" when I know the course material or no participation in class ins necessary.
I bet your parents have a disdain for you when you go to class intending not to receive as much as possible from your professor.
Basically, the high cost of tuition exists so that professors can teach you. The absolutely highest transfer of information comes in class. The best correlate of high grades in college is class attendance and participation. You simply cannot learn as effectively any other way.
And if you grasp it easily and attendance is mandatory, listen up anyway. You are paying for it. You pay anywhere from $50 to $200 per lecture, JUST TO LISTEN TO THE PROFESSOR RAMBLE. Make him earn it. Listen. Ask tough questions. Get good grades.
A trademark only prevents use of a term as a commercial label, not as a descriptive term
Trademarks are defined wrt a specific market. Just because Microsoft trademarked "Windows" doesn't imply anything about the use of the term in different contexts - such as "Blake's Windows" as the name for a store that replaces glass windows.
The use of the term IBM-compatible is generally fine as long as it is noted that the IBM in IBM-compatible refers to the trademarked name owned by IBM. Then, you are actually using the trademark to refer to the trademarked item - which is fine. It is not fine to call something else an IBM computer and use the term IBM to market it.
What are you talking about? The article is about trademark law. Back in the day, Microsoft was granted a trademark on the name Windows. Now, you can't trademark a word commonly associated with the product you are making. For example, I couldn't trademark the name "ice cream" for my ice cream product. The word is commonly used for that already, and this has two negative effects. One, I gain value by associating my trademark with the words defining the product. Two, I shut out all my competitors from being able to market "ice cream".
In Microsoft's case, the answer will be pretty clear. The trademark on "Windows" should never have been granted in the first place. It was already a common name in computer software. The fact that Lindows changes one letter is irrelevant if the Windows trademark is invalid.
And the preliminary injunction said it was invalid, and allowed Lindows to use its name pending trial. Expect Microsoft to get slammed. But don't worry - this will not affect trademarks on WindowsXP, Windows2000, Windows3.1, or Windows NT, each of which can stand alone as its own trademark.
But the generic term Windows will be gone. And plenty of other computer manufacturers will be quick to use Windows in the names of their products.
Egads, this is a poorly informed post.
Peripheral myelin hits its peak around a year of age - it basically allows walking because feedback from the legs gets in sync with the motor commands.
But various parts of the brain continue to change myelin status through the first 6-7 years at least.
However, the lack of myelin doesn't imply the lack of coherent cerebral activity (although it certainly doesn't help).
I agree with you in sentiment.
Here in San Francisco at mi casa, if you want high speed internet for any kind of reasonable price, you have to get DSL.
If you get DSL, SBC will receive $40 US per month. When DSL was getting started, it was perceived that Pacbell (now SBC) would monopolize it rapidly, b/c they own all the lines. So, they HAVE to allow any ISP to use the line for DSL, provided SBC receives $40/month.
Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that SBC will take in 80% of all revenue associated with high speed internet here. No matter who the ISP is.
What is worse, you can't get rid of the land line. SBC claims the $40/month is only supplemental to phone service (which is, ironically, less expensive for line charges than DSL). So unless you spend at least $25 or so per month for minimal phone service, and $40 for the DSL line, you can't get a line for DSL. Add another $10 for minimal PPPoE ISP service, and you are pretty close to an $80 monthly bill.
Now, you might think cable is cheaper, but the AT&T cable internet offered in town is between $40 and $50 per month. If you don't pay for cable also, it costs $60/month (they cannot turn off basic cable if you get cable high speed internet - so you pay for minimal cable whether you want it or not).
My house can't even get the cable. I am thinking seriously about colluding with my neighbors to have 4-5 houses using my DSL line.
This is all a deck of cards that should come crashing down mightily if someone gets set up to offer wireless internet in town in any sort of reasonable fashion.
Can you say me where i can get WMP for RedHat please ?
Here
Any other questions ?
NASA could contribute more to US technology and commerce if they didn't waste as much money trying to figure out how to lift people's carcasses into orbit.
Except when that technology revolves around how to keep people alive, warm, oxygenated, etc. Let's face it - the concept that a man could walk on the moon is attractive for lots of reasons, including in the long term the idea that man may someday be able to live in outer space.
As for boosting robotics, or AI instead, I am pretty certain they got boosts too, but heavy reliance on computers in the aircraft was a pretty foreign concept in the late 60s. Robotics did get large boosts.
Put a man on Mars. Let's see where it goes from there.
NASA got itself into this problem by presenting itself as a frontier organization, a group of heroic explorers. And to maintain that image, they are wasting lots of money on useless projects like the space shuttle and the space station.
The technology bleed-through from the moon explorations has paved the way for things of wide variety, like Oakley glassed, Tang, ceramic insulators, new engine fuels and designs, etc.
I wouldn't call it useless. Instead, it forms one significant reason the USA has many technological advantages. All that technology has now become part of daily life.
Presenting the space missions with "heroes" also has advantages in maintaining public support, so that the massive technology thrust funded by NASA can continue to contribute to US technology commerce.
I kinda liked Buzz Aldrin's response to the moon hoaxers the best.
It is a lie.
Star Office will be ubiquitious. It also works with linux, but linux will not be ubiquitious.
In other words, they are moving to Star Office freely, or for a minimal price on CD. Hardly the same as a non-Microsoft workplace, more like non-MSOffice workplace.
Still, not a bad start.
Now if they could just set up a Christiania in San Francisco...
you're retarded. You NEVER did more than a 1-1 trade. If you didn't have a SBD to trade back, you did a B&P (blanks and postage) trade or joined a vine
No, I never did. My brother, however, has several hundred dead shows on tape, and sometimes he would find something he wanted, and would have to spend several more trades to get whatever it was the person offering the item of interest wanted. Pure barter. That is all changing now, though, with the internet. Sound board copies of shows 10-15 years old are becoming REALLY common, whereas they used to be incredibly rare.
Anyway, to the point. Phish's move will increase the quality and quantity of their live concert performance tapings, and will make money doing it. If the Grateful Dead were right, this makes Phish money in concert attendance, in merchandising, and in sales of studio albums.
And I think the GD were right, but time will tell.
This is totally in the Grateful Dead tradition of viral marketing.
The Dead let people tape and trade their shows, but you couldn't sell them. The traders developed a barter system, and soundboard copies of shows were top dog in the barter system. You could get 3-4 non-soundboard shows for one soundboard.
So now Phish will provide people with REALLY high quality bootlegs of shows for $10 (I guess bootleg isn't really the right term). People will buy them. For certain. And this puts MORE Phish music out there, and makes people more likely to go to their concerts and buy their studio releases - and that is the real goal. They know people will copy and trade these shows for free - again - that is the goal. They just give anyone an easy way to get any concert for $10. That is a lot of value compared to checking bartering message boards and trying to come up with a valuable enough trade.
A smart business move by Phish. The Dead made their shows tradeable, and had more concert attendance in the 1980s and 1990s than any other band. They made a lot of cash from their shows, and from their merchandising.
I am a standard member of the club, and I purchased the DVD set of Mandrake 9.0, because it was worth paying for.
Good for you.
But you ought to be able to see the writing on the wall. Mandrake's business model is failing. You just can't justify the amount they spend on development and packaging costs with the amount they make selling Open Source software. And if you support them now, you better expect to dole out even MORE cash in another 6 months, more after that....
Heck, RedHat is having a hard time, too, but they are at least treading water. In another five years the only full distro will be Debian, which is actually strengthening over time, as opposed to the weakening coming from Mandrake and the others. The reason is that you cannot make enough money selling Open Source software to support a company based on packaging. However, the collective community can do it quite well - thus Debian and its volunteers survive.
It remains to be seen if companies like RedHat will be able to morph themselves into support companies based on Debian packaging (a HUGE win financially for RedHat - lose the devel and packaging costs, zero in on the cash flow).
Note: I could care less how much you like Mandrake. Lots of quality products fail financially, and that is not a judgment on their quality, but on their market value. And, pretty soon, that market value will be less than zero.
Wow - that is kinda close to the standard for our field. Except that editors get paid. But they don't edit so much as manage the editing process - they decide who reviews and edits which paper, and whether it is acceptable for publication.
Students can almost 100% of the time receive an OK from a journal to publish their article as part of their theses if it is cited appropriately and published in entirety in the thesis.
Journals usually typeset the paper. To do this they start by importing everything into Word. Why - it is a standard. Absolute crap for typesetting, but that is the way it goes. Some journals are getting adept at using TeX and PDF.
The important service the journal provide is peer-review. This process provides some assurances about quality, and varies from journal to journal. Often, in some fields, the most read journals are not the best reviewed - yet they are the most desireable in which to publish because the whole point of publishing is getting as many people as possible to read your work. But really poorly read journals invariably have weak review processes, since no one is going to read the paper anyway.
So different journals provide an important sorting mechanism: they sort papers by quality and by field. This sorting process dominates how we think about our colleagues. If an online publishing format is to work, it will HAVE to be better at sorting, which generally means the peer-review process must correspond better to the coverage of readership - better papers MUST appear in the more read online journals.
And, in the end, there is no escaping it. The quality of the whole process is dominated by the quality of the scientists that can peer-review the papers. And for this - the online journal may think about re-inventing manuscript review to make peer-review open and work consistently.
Exposing the animal's brain and forcing it to lead a life with a metal skullcap bolted to its skull is quite different than teaching fido to fetch and using treats as reinforcement.
The animal would not even exist except that it was bred for research purposes. The animal's brain is not exposed - there are small burrholes made through which electrodes with 10-20 microns of exposed metal are inserted.
From a behavioral viewpoint, the two techniques are inter-related. Activation of brain pathways with microelectrodes is just a step closer in potency compared with Scooby-snacks.
No service dog is ever inflicted with pain to train it.
Actually, most of them use choke collars at some point in training. Many of my friends that love their dogs use them, too. Pain is a part of life not just for lab animals, but for dogs and humans too. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. Now, it is a very good thing to minimize pain and suffering, and that is a responsibility of every person who interacts with animals. Or humans.
Handlers/trainers bend over backwards to create a loving, caring environment for their animals.
The environment for RoboRat is similarly caring. The rats are kept in clean environments, are well-fed, and have their health checked regularly and attended to. It is quite a step up from the wild rat. And, quite frankly, rats who have their reward pathways activated are REALLY HAPPY RATS.
NASA can build robots and send them many, many, many, ..., many lightyears away to distance planets. They can then remotely control them and obtain rock samples, pH test data, and brightness/contrast/luminosity metrics. They can use them to search as well, locating various pools of high-resource lime and calcium areas. Why can't we do this in this instance? A $20 Lego robot kit could almost get the job done if you just throw in a camera that can sense photons. But no, let's just electrocute rats' brains with RF signals because it's "cool".
Rats are REALLY cheap - about $15 before you add a few hundred dollars of hardware to make it RoboRat.
And, rats have built in locomotion that is more advanced than anything NASA or any other robotic creator has ever created. It is the best tool for the job. Best performance for the price. Kinda like an avalanche-dog on a smaller scale.
Dogs and cats ALREADY serve humans after being trained using known reinforcement techniques. This is not really any different - different reinforcer, that is all.
Note. Using Crossover is not a Windows Terminal Server environment. At all. Windows Terminal Server is a specifically defined product.
You do not need any license to connect a PC to a linux X server. There is a great deal of ambiguity as to whether the current licensing would require one office license for each concurrent user, or one for each piece of hardware that will display it. The version of office is ALWAYS run on the linux machine, it is just displayed and captures mouse/keyboard input from elsewhere.
Now, device is defined by Microsoft to mean anyplace it will contact any piece of hardware, but it is non-trivial to draw the line. Does a diskless client require a license ? How about if multiple people use wireless keyboards, monitors, and mice, but run it off the same machine ? Is then each wireless device required to have a license? Or just each combination (keyboard, mouse, monitor)? Or is the whole wireless net that all talks to one machine considered under one license?
Now, how is a thin linux client different from a wireless keyboard/monitor/mouse combination?
I think it would be fairly easy to convince a judge that per device licensing in a networked environment is completely ambiguous, whereas concurrent user licenses are straightforward.
Well, some details are found Here at Eweek. The study was done by IDC.
... takes into account the costs of acquiring and supporting the hardware and software required for each of these specific workloads. Costs are broken out into six categories: hardware, software, staffing, downtime, IT staff training, and outsourcing costs," says the white paper.
The study compared the five-year TCO of Windows 2000 server environments with Linux server environments from multiple Linux vendors at some 100 different North American companies.
"The TCO metrics are described in terms of five-year costs for 100 users. IDC's TCO methodology
You can pretty much bet that Microsoft defined a limited space for the study and let IDC produce a white paper, knowing in advance it would be fodder for press releases. It mostly comes down to management tools for some tasks in which Mickeysoft has GUI tools.
Of course, defining 5 year TCO for an operating system that will not be supported for 5 years is a little silly...
Configuring Unix for security is harder than windows because windows offers you niceties such as the group policy editor and heavy use of ACLs. While various linux filesystems support ACLs, no one is using them yet. I'm sure it's coming, though, which will go a long way towards ease of administration.
This is nice if you are trying to protect your system from your own users.
However, if you are interested in protected it from remote attacks, linux is MUCH easier. Iptables (for firewalling) is built in for free, and scripts to configure it are freely available. Security updates are quickly available and easy to apply. Linux wins, it is a no brainer.
A competent admin can make either OS secure, from local or remote attack. My subjective estimate is that Unix/linux admins can handle far more boxes per person than Windows admins, though.
When you decided to record Mr Tambourine Man ?
Yes.
The fine-grained locking improvements on SMP will make it noticeably better for SMP boxes.
A very big improvement is that IDE has been parallelized, meaning that if you use multiple IDE devices at once you will see a "night and day" difference in performance.
If you are uniprocessor and all SCSI and already use low-latency patches, well, as you were.
Again, the fair-use clause concerns redistribution, not modification.
Right. Modifying the program for personal use is a no-brainer.
The only issue, really, is whether you have a default right to re-distribute patches without permission from the copyright author whose work you patch. And, it would probably come down to the opinion of the judge. Are you selling the patch ? That works against you. But you unquestionably INCREASE the market for the work, so that works for you. The patch includes NONE of the original copyrighted material, which works VERY strongly for you. I think that probably, if the patch is freely distributed, it would be considered fair use.
But in copyright law, the judge gets to decide how to interpret fair use. So the specifics are important, too.
... states that right to modify a covered work is a right reserved to the copyright owner.
There is also fair use, and if your modifying the program didn't impact the market for the program, or the reputation of the author, it is almost unthinkable that a judge would decide that your modifications were illegal. There really is no "set in stone law" - each case will depend on the considerations relevant to fair use and the particulars of the case. It is not like stealing where the answer is clear cut. There are mitigating factors that, in this case, make the answer REALLY clear.
Note that all of this pre-assumes that the author takes you to court. And, in such a case, in as much as DJB has publicly stated many times that he thinks you can and should (if you want to) modify his programs for your use, the point is really really moot.
Copyright law is civil law. There could certainly be cases in which modifications of source code for personal use would be illegal. But, in general, if your personal use modifications have no impact on the market for the copyrighted work or the reputation of the author, it will be fair use. Just like writing in the margins of a book is fair use. The book is no longer the same, but you are the only person using it, so the author has zero impact. It is really a little silly to waste so much breath on it.
On the subject of freedoms, I agree that the right to re-distribute derivative works is a big freedom. The GNU freedoms are simpler though - the relevant right is the right to distribute your improvements of the program to others. In the case of DJB software, you can do that.
Like his licenses or not, I am going to keep using it. Well, really, that is a no brainer. The stuff works and I never need to look at it. That is the highest praise an admin could give any piece of software.