Genral Web Comments
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Monday, March 29, 2004
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Download: "With thanks to Alan Apt of Prentice Hall for giving me back the copyright and Chip Coldwell for reproducing it from the original tex files, here finally is a digital version of On Lisp.
[600K Compressed Postscript File]
[1412K Postscript File]
[1030K PDF File]
This is identical to the printed version, except that nine diagrams are missing. If you see a blank figure, that's what happened. These unfortunately seem to be lost.
Note: Identical means including mistakes. Please let me know if you find more."
Windows-to-Linux roadmap: Series overview: "IBM e-business architect Chris Walden is your guide through a nine-part developerWorks series on moving your operational skills from a Windows to a Linux environment. He covers everything from logging to networking, and from the command-line to help systems -- even compiling packages from available source code."
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Licence fees and GDP per capita: "Licence fees and GDP per capita: The case for open source in developing countries by Rishab Aiyer Ghosh
There is a strong case for free software (also known as open source or libre software) being deployed widely in developing countries. As argued in this note, the open source development community provides an environment of intensive interactive skills development at little explicit cost, which is particularly useful for local development of skills, especially in economically disadvantaged regions. Further, this note argues that the controversy over total costs of ownership (TCO) of free vs. proprietary software is not applicable to developing countries and other regions with low labour costs, where the TCO advantage lies with open source, and the share of licence fees in TCO is much higher than in high labour cost countries. The note concludes with a table comparing license fees for proprietary software against GDP per capita for 176 countries."
We Can Put an End to Word Attachments - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
by Richard M. Stallman, Jan 2002
Don't you just hate receiving Word documents in email messages? Word attachments are annoying, but worse than that, they impede people from switching to free software. Maybe we can stop this practice with a simple collective effort. All we have to do is ask each person who sends us a Word file to reconsider that way of doing things.
Most computer users use Microsoft Word. That is unfortunate for them, since Word is proprietary software, denying its users the freedom to study, change, copy, and redistribute it. And because Microsoft changes the Word file format with each release, its users are locked into a system that compels them to buy each upgrade whether they want a change or not. They may even find, several years from now, that the Word documents they are writing this year can no longer be read with the version of Word they use then.
But it hurts us, too, when they assume we use Word and send us (or demand that we send them) documents in Word format. Some people publish or post documents in Word format. Some organizations will only accept files in Word format: someone I know was unable to apply for a job because resumes had to be Word files. Even governments sometimes impose Word format on the public, which is truly outrageous.
For us users of free operating systems, receiving Word documents is an inconvenience. But the worst impact of sending Word format is on people who might switch to free systems: they hesitate because they feel they must have Word available to read the Word files they receive. The practice of using the secret Word format for interchange impedes the growth of our community and the spread of freedom. While we notice the occasional annoyance of receiving a Word document, this steady and persistent harm to our community usually doesn't come to our attention. But it is happening all the time.
Many GNU users who receive Word documents try to find ways to handle them. You can manage to find the somewhat obfuscated ASCII text in the file by skimming through it. Free software today can read some Word documents, but not all--the format is secret and has not been entirely decoded. Even worse, Microsoft can change it at any time.
In the future, they might use Palladium or some other "treacherous computing" facility in a new version of Word format, to make it utterly hopeless for any software to access the files without Microsoft authorization. There are also reports that Microsoft is planning to use patented extensions to XML as the basis for a future Word format; anyone who implements free software to read those files could be sued for patent infringement by Microsoft.
If you think of the document you received as an isolated event, it is natural to try to cope with it on your own. But when you recognize it as an instance of a pernicious systematic practice, it calls for a different approach. Managing to read the file is treating a symptom of a chronic illness. To cure the illness, we must convince people not to send or post Word documents.
For about a year, I've made a practice of responding to Word attachments with a polite message explaining why the practice of sending Word files is a bad thing, and asking the person to resend the material in a nonsecret format. This is a lot less work than trying to read the somewhat obfuscated ASCII text in the Word file. And I find that people usually understand the issue, and many say they will not send Word files to others any more.
If we all do this, we will have a much larger effect. People who disregard one polite request may change their practice when they receive multiple polite requests from various people. We may be able to give "don't send Word format" the status of netiquette, if we start systematically raising the issue with everyone who sends us Word files.
To make this effort efficient, you will probably want to develop a canned reply that you can quickly send each time it is necessary. I've included two examples: the version I have been using recently, followed by a new version that teaches a Word user how to convert to other useful formats. They are followed by several suggestions sent by other people.
You can use these replies verbatim if you like, or you can personalize them or write your own. By all means construct a reply that fits your ideas and your personality--if the replies are personal and not all alike, that will make the campaign more effective.
These replies are meant for individuals who send Word files. When you encounter an organization that imposes use of Word format, that calls for a different sort of reply; there you can raise issues of fairness that would not apply to an individual's actions.
Some recruiters ask for resumes in Word format. Amazingly, some recruiters do this even when looking for someone for a free software job. (Anyone using those recruiters for free software jobs is not likely to get someone competent.) To help change this practice, you can put a link to this page into your resume, next to links to other formats of the resume. Anyone hunting for a Word version of the resume will probably read this page.
With our numbers, simply by asking, we can make a difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You sent the attachment in Microsoft Word format, a secret proprietary format, so I cannot read it. If you send me the plain text, HTML, or PDF, then I could read it.
Sending people documents in Word format has bad effects, because that practice puts pressure on them to use Microsoft software. In effect, you become a buttress of the Microsoft monopoly. This specific problem is a major obstacle to the broader adoption of GNU/Linux. Would you please reconsider the use of Word format for communication with other people?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You sent the attachment in Microsoft Word format, a secret proprietary format, so it is hard for me to read. If you send me plain text, HTML, or PDF, then I will read it.
Distributing documents in Word format is bad for you and for others. You can't be sure what they will look like if someone views them with a different version of Word; they may not work at all.
Receiving Word attachments is bad for you because they can carry viruses (see http://www.viruslist.com/eng/viruslist.html?id=7). Sending Word attachments is bad for you, because a Word document normally includes hidden information about the author, enabling those in the know to pry into the author's activities (maybe yours). Text that you think you deleted may still be embarrassingly present. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3154479.stm for more info.
But above all, sending people Word documents puts pressure on them to use Microsoft software and helps to deny them any other choice. In effect, you become a buttress of the Microsoft monopoly. This pressure is a major obstacle to the broader adoption of free software. Would you please reconsider the use of Word format for communication with other people?
To convert the file to HTML using Word is simple. Open the document, click on File, then Save As, and in the Save As Type strip box at the bottom of the box, choose HTML Document or Web Page. Then choose Save. You can then attach the new HTML document instead of your Word document. Note that Word changes in inconsistent ways--if you see slightly different menu item names, please try them.
To convert to plain text is almost the same--instead of HTML Document, choose Text Only or Text Document as the Save As Type.
Your computer may also have a program to convert to pdf format. Select File => Print. Scroll through available printers and select the pdf converter. Click on the Print button and enter a name for the pdf file when requested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another approach, suggested by Bob Chassell. It requires that you edit it for the specific example, and it presumes you have a way to extract the contents and see how long they are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am puzzled. Why did you choose to send me 876,377 bytes in your recent message when the content is only 27,133 bytes?
You sent me five files in the non-standard, bloated .doc format that is Microsoft's secret, rather than in the international, public, and more efficient format of plain text.
Microsoft can (and did recently in Kenya and Brazil) have local police enforce laws that prohibit students from studying the code, prohibit entrepeneurs starting new companies, and prohibit professionals offering their services. Please don't give them your support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Ramsdell suggests people to discourage the use of Microsoft Word and PowerPoint attachments by making a small statement in their .signature file:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a response letter by Alexandros Papadopoulos to an email message with word attachment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Cole of the Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C sends out this automatic reply message whenever he receives a word attachment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Texts to Read
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translations of this page:
[ Bosanski | Česky | Dansk | Deutch | Français | English | Español | Italiano | Polski | Português ]
Return to the GNU Project home page.
Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to gnu@gnu.org. There are also other ways to contact the FSF.
Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to webmasters@gnu.org.
Please see the Translations README for information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article.
Copyright © 2002 Richard M. Stallman
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Updated: $Date: 2004/02/22 12:33:23 $ $Author: wkotwica $
NewsForge | Microsoft displays fear, uncertainty, and doubt toward OpenOffice.org
Microsoft displays fear, uncertainty, and doubt toward OpenOffice.org
Saturday March 27, 2004 - [ 09:32 AM GMT ]
Topics: Office Software , Open Source , Software
By: Taran Rampersad
I came across this Microsoft OpenOffice 1.1 Competitive Guide through a post on the TTLUG mailing list, and decided to answer it fully in a FDLed response because it will save quite a few people from typing everything.
The
Basics
According to the Microsoft document, the basic system requirements for OpenOffice are:
* Windows (98, NT, 2000, XP) -- Pentium-compatible PC, 64 MB RAM, 130 MB HD; or
* Linux (x86, PowerPC) -- 64 MB RAM and 170 MB HD
* Solaris (x66, SPARC) -- 64 MB RAM and 240 MB HD; or
* MacOSX (beta); or
* FreeBSD
They did not, however, compare it to Office XP. We shall through Microsoft's own Office XP System requirements:
* Computer with Pentium 133 megahertz (MHz) or higher processor; Pentium III recommended
* # Windows 98, or Windows 98 Second Edition 24 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Microsoft Word) running simultaneously
# Windows Me, or Microsoft Windows NT®
32 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Word) running simultaneously
# Windows 2000 Professional
64 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Word) running simultaneously
# Windows XP Professional, or Windows XP Home Edition 128 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Word) running simultaneously
* Hard disk space requirements will vary depending on configuration; custom installation choices may require more or less. Listed below are the minimum hard disk requirements for Office XP suites:
* Office XP Standard
210 MB of available hard disk space
* Office XP Professional and Professional Special Edition²
245 MB of available hard disk space
An additional 115 MB is required on the hard disk where the operating system is installed. Users without Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows Me, or Office 2000 Service Release 1 (SR-1) require an extra 50 MB of hard disk space for System Files Update.
* Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me), Windows NT 4.0 with Service Pack 6 (SP6) or later,³ Windows 2000, or Windows XP or later.
* CD-ROM drive
* Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution monitor with 256 colors
* Microsoft Mouse, Microsoft IntelliMouse®, or compatible pointing device
Please do not forget the key phrase in these Office XP requirements: "an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Microsoft Word) running simultaneously ." That said, OpenOffice more than holds its own, and does so in less disk space on more operating systems.
Being functional on more operating systems guarantees more cross compatibility between platforms, which allows users to change their operating systems, if they so decide, with a lower migration cost. So OpenOffice's customizability could actually decrease costs in the future; it is not reliant on one operating system.
The Minimum Office XP requirements state 'Pentium 133 MHz machine'. In translation, this would probably be a machine used by a Windows 98SE user, which would require them to have 24 - 56 Megabytes of RAM, 375 Megabytes of Hard disk space, etc.
The XP requirements for Office XP are much more interesting. 128-168 megabytes of memory and 325 megabytes of hard drive space.
Let's compare again with the OpenOffice requirements for XP and 98SE:
'Windows (98, NT, 2000, XP) – Pentium-compatible PC,64 MB RAM, 130 MB HD'.
Clear winner: OpenOffice.
Now we shall look at their 'Value Proposition And Response'.
Value Proposition And Response
Microsoft's document stresses that the licensing costs are not representative of the total costs of ownership, and this is a valid point. But let's compare, point by point:
* Installation and deployment: OpenOffice can be installed at no cost, and deployed easily. Microsoft Office XP, however, requires licensing costs and requires more hardware to run on (see above). It also requires that you run an operating system which must be licensed at cost. An international comparison of cost per license of operating system and GDP is revealing in this regard.
* Data Migration and Testing: In migrating Microsoft Office documents to OpenOffice, some advanced formatting may be lost - and this is a problem, but it is unreasonable to demand this because of the fact that Microsoft does not make it's data formats public.
They make special note on the cost of migrating a Microsoft Access database to OpenOffice, but fail to mention the costs associated with upgrading a Microsoft Access database even with their own software. Free Software and Open Source databases are typically available at no cost, so the money would be spent on the actual 'liberation' of the data. Microsoft will require you to purchase licensing for SQL Server, and businesses will still have to pay for the migration of the data.
* Document Conversion And Rewriting Macros: OpenOffice does not use Visual Basic for Applications, but has a macro language of it's own. It should be noted that Microsoft's macros are also incompatible with those of OpenOffice. Therefore, this is a valid point and would be part of a migration cost, yet one has to wonder at how complex such macros would be in a SMB.
*Training: OpenOffice is, for the most part, the same as Microsoft Office XP for a user, but there are things that they will need to learn how to do differently. All things being equal, if a company's staff need formal training for OpenOffice, then they probably need it for every new version of Microsoft Office. Therefore there is a cost on both sides, and they are at least equal.
* Email client: Microsoft notes that OpenOffice lacks an email client. This, however, would take us to Mozilla, which is a standalone web browser with more features than Internet Explorer (such as tabbed browsing), and is much more secure than Microsoft Outlook as a default.
* Collaboration: Microsoft makes it a point to discuss that collaboration is required. Yet OpenOffice runs on all major operating systems, and Microsoft Office does not. This certainly becomes an issue of collaboration.
They also mention that there is a need to assure mission critical data is impervious to virus attack -- and given the latest viruses, this does not bode well for them as all major attacks have taken advantages of flaws in Microsoft Operating Systems and even their Office software. This can lead down the path to security itself, in which ubiquity of Microsoft products probably has an effect.
*Support: Microsoft says that there is no dedicated team for the OpenOffice suite. What Microsoft fails to realize is that the 'dedicated team' are mainly the users; OpenOffice has a community whereas Microsoft users have support groups.
*Limited Compatibility: Microsoft properly asserts that OpenOffice is not 100% compatible with their product. Microsoft, however, has apparently decided not to support the OpenOffice formats either, for which they have no excuse: the standards for OpenOffice documents are publicly available, whereas Microsoft makes it a habit to sue people for reverse engineering their own formats. Richard Stallman wrote about this in 2002.
Total Value Of OpenOffice
(1) Ease of Use: While computer users throughout the world (including this author) have become familiar with Microsoft's Office suites over the years, OpenOffice is not difficult to learn by simply using it. It's long been kept a secret, but no training in basic use of Office suites is needed; only advanced use of an Office suite may create a need for training -- regardless of which suite it is.
(2) Tailored Solutions: OpenOffice has the benefit of permitting more customized applications to interact with it due to ithe Freedom associated with the source code, which means it will allow more people to develop custom applications which interact with it. Microsoft products require more Microsoft products to interact with them, they come at a cost and limit what a developer can do since the source code is not available.
(3) Better and Faster Work: Such comparisons are inherently flawed, since they would have to have the same users doing the same work on different Office suites. Let's face it: Users just want to do what they have to with their software. In this regard, OpenOffice facilitates this just as Microsoft Office does, but has the benefit of having the source code available for allowing more applications to interact with it. This means more potential productivity when dealing with the business logic of a SMB.
(4) Seamless Data Exchange: Microsoft claims seamless data exchange within Microsoft Office - but it's only between people using Microsoft products. OpenOffice allows people who use a variety of operating systems and data formats to interact with each other. Microsoft Office does not.
(5) Easier Deployment and Maintenance: Installation for either package is very simple. OpenOffice does have a clear benefit here: Service packs are not something one has to constantly look for (at this time). Further, simply installing the latest version of OpenOffice over a later version takes less overall time than constantly updating via patches and service packs.
(6) Security: Microsoft is brave to bring viruses into its marketing strategy when it has been one of Microsoft's greatest problems, despite all the nice things their Marketing brochures have to say about how secure it is. Where the rubber meets the road, Microsoft Office loses.
(7) Investment You Can Trust: Using OpenOffice is an investment of your time, your energy and your future of being able to interoperate with people around the world, without worrying about what operating system that they use. Microsoft Office is an investment in Microsoft's time, energy and future.
Final Words
Microsoft used to have an advertisement asking where you wanted to go today; this is more true of OpenOffice since it allows you more control of your data through vendors and even inhouse staff who can help with it. Microsoft is dictating a future; this is why they do not allow Open Standards.
This is also why Microsoft spends so much time in courts around the world.
Copyright (c) 2004, Taran Rampersad.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License" on the GNU website.
Related Links
· Online Desktop Application Boo
· Linux
· OpenOffice
· Microsoft's own Office XP System requirements
· cost per license of operating system and GDP
· Free Software
· Open Source
· Mozilla
· Richard Stallman wrote about this in 2002
· GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
· GNU
· OpenOffice 1.1 Competitive Guide
· TTLUG
· FDLed
· Office Software books online
· Best deals: Office Software
· More Office Software stories
< Commentary: EU action against Microsoft not painful enough
Comments: Microsoft displays fear, uncertainty, and doubt toward OpenOffice.org
Top | 30 comments | Search Discussion | Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads)
I don't meet the reqirements for MS Office (Score:0)
by Anonymous Reader on 2004.03.27 6:11 (#88833)
* Microsoft Mouse, Microsoft IntelliMouse®, or compatible pointing device
I have a Logitech mouse and its not written anywhere on it that it is compatible with Microsoft Mouse or Microsoft IntelliMouse so I obviously can't use MS Office.
* Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution monitor with 256 colors
There again I fail. I have a higher resolution (1280x1024) but in 16M colors. Switching back to 256 colors? no way!
[ Reply to This ]
Re:You EXCEED the requirements (no failure...) by Anonymous Reader (Score:0) 2004.03.27 7:54
So, what's new? (Score:2)
by OwlWhacker (153354) on 2004.03.27 8:15 (#88838)
Microsoft displays fear, uncertainty, and doubt toward any of its competitors.
This is basically Microsoft's way of admitting that OO.o is a threat.
This is a good thing.
I can't see how anybody but a gullible simpleton would believe Microsoft's FUD after all these years.
[ Reply to This ]
(rotten) apples and oranges? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Reader on 2004.03.27 8:22 (#88839)
They make special note on the cost of migrating a Microsoft Access database to OpenOffice, but fail to mention the costs associated with upgrading a Microsoft Access database even with their own software. Free Software and Open Source databases are typically available at no cost, so the money would be spent on the actual 'liberation' of the data. Microsoft will require you to purchase licensing for SQL Server, and businesses will still have to pay for the migration of the data.
the thing is the OpenOffice suites does not have a database at all. I believe StarOffice has something called Abacus and there is some free or open-source databases out there (PostgreSQL and mySQL until they changed their license) but these are not part of OpenOffice.
This seems a major weakness in OpenOffice to me: the abscence of a simple relational database, easy to install and with some (but not all) of the features of the big ones. I know that many people hate Access 'kuz its too primitive' but look at the small business environment: do they run Oracle or DB2? Nope - most of the time they use Access and this is something which our community sorely lacks for the time being.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:(rotten) apples and oranges? by Anonymous Reader (Score:0) 2004.03.27 8:40
Re:(rotten) apples and oranges? by Anonymous Reader (Score:0) 2004.03.27 19:25
Re:(rotten) apples and oranges? by Anonymous Reader (Score:0) 2004.03.27 19:25
Running a bit ahead... (Score:1)
by Old Jacques (188029) on 2004.03.27 8:32 (#88841)
While I am trying to learn the OOorg programs, I must disagree with several of your points, not for any particular love of Microsoft or its products, but rather for a frustration with some of OOorgs "features", and the learning curve I am being subjected (and I am not a newbie). It seems that many of your arguments were written as though OOorg already had the marketing leverage that MS Office has conquered over many years, and (yes) some hard work (at least early on, they overcame great obstacles to get on top of the heap). I have yet to discover (after several web search and Help searches) how to show two pages side-by-side and discover a "format painter", other then adding a new named format based on the existing text and then using that to paint to the area desired - an extra step for which I don't understand the reasoning or necessity. Just two little examples which, at least in my case, undermine the concept of
"All things being equal, if a company's staff need formal training for OpenOffice, then they probably need it for every new version of Microsoft Office."
From one version of Office to the next, for the most part (but admittedly not always) Microsoft knows better than to change things which already work, so you can still do what you did, until you start learning extras and adding More New Things (which you probably didn't need anyway - but that's a different rant). And most importantly (to me):
"In migrating Microsoft Office documents to OpenOffice, some advanced formatting may be lost - and this is a problem, but it is unreasonable to demand this because of the fact that Microsoft does not make it's data formats public."
unfortunately, since no one is physically coerced to purchase MS Office (or at least doesn't seem to have been proven yet) I don't see why Microsoft, a private company, must release its standards, just because it would be convenient to its competitors. And if the company uses a valid, functioning product, I don't see how they can be blamed if in using a competitive product, the competitor doesn't "get it quite right" just because I am unwilling to help the competition out of the "good of my heart" (we're talking business, not humanitarianism here...) The capability (or not) of OOorg to deal with the data is one of its Davidian problems in overtaking Goliath, but it is silly for us to say that Goliath is injust unless he warns before taking a swing, just because David thinks it's cool to let out a yell before every stone's throw. You can bet that if and when OOorg becomes a threat to Microsoft, it will either support the public standards already available, or suffer the losses (if it feels it can afford it). Or maybe it will just try to buy its way out here too... I do like OOorg, and can manage with the limitations it has with MS Office documents, but I don't see any reason to hide that the problems exist, just to play it up better against the competition without actually improving anything.
GHOST TOWN: "my rides through chernobyl area
now including a photos of new rides (spring 2004)
beginning of a story about town where one can ride with no stoplights, no police, no danger to hit some cage or some dog.. "
Monday, March 22, 2004
freshmeat.net: Project details for Network Probe: "Network Probe is a network monitor and protocol analyzer that gives you an instant picture of the traffic situation on your network and enables you to identify and isolate traffic problems. Traffic statistics are graphically displayed in real-time. "
freshmeat.net: Project details for Armagetron: "In Armagetron, you ride a lightcycle around the game grid. You can only make sharp turns of 90 degrees and a wall constantly builds up after you. Make your enemies crash into your wall, but be aware that they are trying to do the same to you. If you are fast enough, you may be able to trap them, but the only way to speed up your lightcycle is to drive close to the dangerous walls. Prepare for exciting strategic preparations followed by action-packed close combat! "
freshmeat.net: Project details for BomberClone: "BomberClone is a free Bomberman-like game for Linux and Windows. The rules of the game are simple: run though a level and bomb other players. It features powerups that give you more strength, make you walk faster through the level, or let you drop more bombs. "
freshmeat.net: Project details for arrows: "Arrows is a unique little maze game. The goal is to guide the blue spinning thing through a maze of arrows, collecting the green things to score points. Arrows can be created and destroyed along the way. The player is chased by an enemy sprite which slowly catches up. "
freshmeat.net: Project details for 2Pong: "2Pong is a pong clone. However, there is one visible difference from the regular pong--it is played with two balls instead of one. The game features three modes of play: the regular pong game with 4 difficulty levels, a kickups like mode with two balls, and a '2 vs 2' mode. Network support for '1 vs 1' games is also available. "
freshmeat.net: Project details for AdvanceCD: "Advance CD is a bootable ISO image of a minimal Linux distribution containing the AdvanceMAME and AdvanceMESS arcade emulators and the AdvanceMENU frontend. You can boot this CD in any PC and play the contained games without any installation. "
freshmeat.net: Project details for SigmaPi Neurosimulator: "SigmaPi is a simulator for recurrent neural networks of arbitrary topology. It uses the LSTM neuron model, and implements a training algorithm based on RTRL with some extensions taken from RProp. "
freshmeat.net: Project details for libASSA: "libASSA is an OO C++ UNIX networking library based on some of the design patterns such as Configurator, Reactor, Acceptor, and Connector collectively known as Adaptive Communication Patterns described in various papers published by Dr. D. C. Schmidt. "
Friday, March 19, 2004
Monday, March 15, 2004
POV-Ray: A Tool for Creating Engaging Visualisation of Geometry: "Abstract
Computers are now a standard tool for creating, exploring, and presenting geometric form and mathematics. Finding the right software tools can be difficult, especially so when high quality and visually appealing images are required. This paper will discuss one particular package (POV-Ray) used with great success by the author. A general discussion of the desirable features will be presented along with examples based around the familiar tetrahedral form."
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Science news articles, Discover Magazine subscriptions, Science magazines online - Discover.ComThe Gene That Made Us Human
Blogger API: "Blogger API
By Evan Williams, 8/7/01
Update: 8/13/01 -Ev.
Update: 6/27/03 -Jason Shellen
Welcome to the Blogger API. This site is for independent developers and partners who are interested in hooking into Blogger with other programs, interfaces, or environments. "
Friday, March 12, 2004
Slashdot | Implementing CIFS: "Posted by timothy on Tuesday March 09, @03:10PM
Bombcar writes 'Anyone who has used Microsoft products in the last ten years has used the SMB protocol (now known as CIFS). Some have become experts in the usage of Windows file sharing, Samba, and more. We know that there can be a 15 minute delay before new machines appear in 'Network Neighborhood'. We've read the Official Samba 3 book, and follow the Samba mailing list once in a while, perhaps even answering questions. But there is a limit to the knowledge given by these sources.' Read on for Bombcar's review of Implementing CIFS from Prentice Hall. "
Salon.com Technology | In search of the deep Web: "In search of the deep Web
The next generation of Web search engines will do more than give you a longer list of search results. They will disrupt the information economy."
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Yahoo! News - Russian Inventor Patents Space-Ads Device: "Russian Inventor Patents Space-Ads Device "
optics.org - News - Concrete casts new light in dull rooms (March 2004)
"Stuck for decorating ideas? Then the light-transmitting concrete that is set to hit the market this year is what you could be looking for! The days of dull, grey concrete could be about to end. A Hungarian architect has combined the world's most popular building material with optical fiber from Schott to create a new type of concrete that transmits light. A wall made of 'LitraCon' allegedly has the strength of traditional concrete but thanks to an embedded array of glass fibers can display a view of the outside world, such as the silhouette of a tree, for example."
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Saturday, March 06, 2004
short introduction: "disaster in my memory
The word CHERNOBYL scares holly bejesus out of people here. If I tell someone that I am heading in 'dead zone'... you know, what I hear.. In best case- 'are you nuts?' My dad used to say that people afraid of a things which they don't know. Dad is nuclear physicist and he also says that of all dangerous things he can only think about one, which is riding on fifth or sixth gear on my bike. In any way, dad and their team work in 'dead zone' for last 18 years. They doing researches from the day when nuclear disaster happened. The rest of guys in a team are microbiologists, doctors, botanists.. etc. I was 7 years old back then and in a few hours after accident happened dad sent us with sister off with the train to Grandmother. Granny lives 800 kms from here and dad wasn't sure if it was far enough for us to stay away of troubles. We had communists at power those days and they kept silence about this accident and then people start learning by themselves and real panic began in 7-10 days after disaster. Dad says, that in those first 10 days exposure to radiation was so powerful that one day of staying in Kiev those first days was equal of 1 year of living in Chernobyl now. Here is map that shows radiation level in different parts of dead zone and which I updated for our local biker club in February 21st of this year (2004) "
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Yum (Yellowdog Updater, Modified) HOWTO: "This is a HOWTO for Yum: the Yellowdog Updater, Modified. Yum is an automatic updater and package installer/remover for rpm-based systems. It automatically computes dependencies and figures out what things should occur in order to safely install, remove, and update rpm packages. Yum also efficiently and easily retrieves information on any package installed or available in a repository to the installer. Yum makes it easier to maintain groups of machines without having to manually update each one using rpm or other tools. Yum can manage package groups, multiple repositories, fallback repositories and more to permit centralized package management performed by just one or two individuals to scale over an entire organization. Note Well! This HOWTO is in a state of total flux during its initial pre-release development. Lots of sections are empty, others are wrong, all is in a state of mediocre organization. Nevertheless, I cherish feedback from anybody on the basis of any snapshot you happen to see. "
FreeSBIE - Free System Burned In Economy: "What is FreeSBIE? Simply: a live system on CD, or an operating system that is able to load directly from a bootable CD, without any installation process, without any hard disk. It's based on the FreeBSD operating system. "
03.03.2004 - UC Berkeley Researchers Developing Robotic Exoskeleton that can Enhance Human Strength and Endurance
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
QDB: Quote #33271: "Ohzie: I once made a shared clipboard in VB
Ohzie: About as stable as hannah's vag on herpes, but
very useful."
Experts Say New Desktop Fusion Claims Seem More Credible
Experts Say New Desktop Fusion Claims Seem More Credible
By KENNETH CHANG
Published: March 3, 2004
cientists are again claiming they have made a Sun in a jar, offering perhaps a revolutionary energy source, and this time even some skeptics find the evidence intriguing enough to call for a closer look.
Using ultrasonic vibrations to shake a jar of liquid solvent the size of a large drink cup, the scientists say, they squeezed tiny gas bubbles in the liquid so quickly and violently that temperatures reached millions of degrees and some of the hydrogen atoms in the solvent molecules fused, producing a flash of light and energy.
"It can do some interesting science stuff as is," said Dr. Richard T. Lahey, a professor of engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and an author of a paper describing the findings that will appear in the journal Physical Review E.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
The experiment could conceivably shrink the science of fusion — slamming hydrogen atoms together, producing heat and light — from giant, expensive reactors to the tabletop.
When this team of researchers made the same claim in an article in the journal Science two years ago, many scientists reacted with skepticism, even ridicule. But new experiments, using better detectors, offer more convincing data that the phenomenon is real.
"We've addressed all the issues and now they all speak for themselves with far greater intensity than they did before," said Dr. Rusi P. Taleyarkhan, the scientist who conducted the experiments at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and is a professor of nuclear engineering at Purdue University.
Skepticism remains, but Dr. Lawrence A. Crum, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Washington who was highly critical of the Science paper, said the new work was "much better" and deserved attention to determine whether the effect could be reproduced.
"It's getting to the point where you can't ignore it," Dr. Crum said.
For decades, physicists have dreamed of harnessing the ferocious alchemy of the Sun as a clean, limitless energy source. Most experiments have been conducted in giant, expensive reactors using magnetic fields to confine the ultrahot gases.
In contrast, the new experiment, which cost less than $1 million, uses the power of sound to create energy comparable to the inside of stars.
To many scientists, however, the phenomenon, nicknamed sonofusion, bears uncomfortable similarities to "cold fusion," which has now been discredited.
Sonofusion has already achieved more scientific respectability than cold fusion ever did, with two articles published in major journals.
And unlike cold fusion, sonofusion is based on known science. Scientists have long observed a phenomenon known as sonoluminescence, in which a burst of ultrasound causes a bubble in a liquid to collapse and emit a flash of light; some have speculated that the gases trapped in the collapsing bubbles could be heated to temperatures hot enough for fusion to occur.
Still, controversy enveloped the Science paper two years ago. The new research by Dr. Taleyarkhan and Dr. Lahey provides a much clearer picture of neutrons that are ejected when fusion occurs.
Many scientists like Dr. Glenn Young, head of the physics division at Oak Ridge, said the experiment was solid, but still incomplete.
"Neutrons are slippery little rascals," he said. "They can fool you. They can bounce and show up around corners you don't expect."
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
