Re: [OT] Power over radio is it a true thing or just a myth ?
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: Once you have satisfied yourself that N=3, you can derive R^-2 easily from flux considerations. Until, of course, the invention of the flux capacitor... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_time_machine Gilad :-) -- Gilad Ben-Yossef Chief Coffee Drinker CTO Codefidence Ltd. Web: http://codefidence.com Cell: +972-52-8260388 Tel: +972-8-9316883 ext. 201 Fax: +972-8-9316884 Email: gi...@codefidence.com Check out our Open Source technology and training blog - http://tuxology.net Now the world has gone to bed Darkness won't engulf my head I can see by infra-red How I hate the night. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: [OT] Power over radio is it a true thing or just a myth ?
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Gilad Ben-Yossefgi...@codefidence.com wrote: Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: Once you have satisfied yourself that N=3, you can derive R^-2 easily from flux considerations. Until, of course, the invention of the flux capacitor... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_time_machine Oh, anything is possible if you travel through space-time in a DeLorean... In particular, when you travel close to the speed of light you emit mostly in the forward direction, not isotropically... ;-) -- Oleg Goldshmidt | o...@goldshmidt.org ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: [OT] Power over radio is it a true thing or just a myth ?
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: In particular, when you travel close to the speed of light you emit mostly in the forward direction, not isotropically... I didn't know physics dealt with gastro functions. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd. http://www.lingnu.com ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: [OT] Power over radio is it a true thing or just a myth ?
2009/8/24 Shachar Shemesh shac...@shemesh.biz Michael Vasiliev wrote: The power of the signal is inversely proportional to the square of distance. That is not precisely accurate. An undirected point source of EM radiation (or any other type of energy) transmits energy that expands on a sphere from the point of transmittal. The surface area of the sphere expands proportionally to R^2. Therefor, the law of conservation of energy dictates that the energy received over a constant area receiver (say, a 1 cm^2 energy receiver) will decline proportionally to the square of the distance from the transmitter. As a side note - does that prove that our universe only has three dimensions? it would if : 1. the origin of the signal is a point in all dimensions (which is usualy not true as you transmit continusly in the time dimension(but may transmit a pulse), dunno about other possible dimensions) 2. it is omnidirectional in all dimensions (which is not true either in the time dimension, dunno about other dimensions as well) AFAIK, according to general relativity, the world is 4D. according to string theory, there are more dimensions ... erez. However, if our transmitter is directional, and you keep the transmitter beam focused, so that it does not expand, there is no reason for the energy to almost not discard at all. Of course, the medium through which you transmit the energy may absorb some of it (assuming it is not a vacuum), and it may disperse some more of it, but there is no reason to get 1/R^2, or even 1/R. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd.http://www.lingnu.com ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: [OT] Power over radio is it a true thing or just a myth ?
Erez D wrote: AFAIK, according to general relativity, the world is 4D. according to string theory, there are more dimensions ... I think we have enough flame wars over FOSS matters. Let's not go into strings, as that would not only be a flame war, but an off topic one at that. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd. http://www.lingnu.com ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: [OT] Power over radio is it a true thing or just a myth ?
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Shachar Shemesh shac...@shemesh.bizwrote: Erez D wrote: AFAIK, according to general relativity, the world is 4D. according to string theory, there are more dimensions ... I think we have enough flame wars over FOSS matters. Let's not go into strings, as that would not only be a flame war, but an off topic one at that. i agree this is OT (the whole thread is), but i do not think this is a flame war. the string theory includes both quanum and relativity theories. as is, relativity is a subset of string, as the linux kernel is a subset of ubuntu. so its like talking about a flame war between ubuntu and the kernel. (i added this reply just to put some oil in the flame war engine, yala makot ;-) erez. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd.http://www.lingnu.com ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: [OT] Power over radio is it a true thing or just a myth ?
Erez D wrote: On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Shachar Shemesh shac...@shemesh.biz mailto:shac...@shemesh.biz wrote: Erez D wrote: AFAIK, according to general relativity, the world is 4D. according to string theory, there are more dimensions ... I think we have enough flame wars over FOSS matters. Let's not go into strings, as that would not only be a flame war, but an off topic one at that. i agree this is OT (the whole thread is), but i do not think this is a flame war. the string theory includes both quanum and relativity theories. as is, relativity is a subset of string, as the linux kernel is a subset of ubuntu. so its like talking about a flame war between ubuntu and the kernel. (i added this reply just to put some oil in the flame war engine, yala makot ;-) And I'm refusing to go there. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd. http://www.lingnu.com ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
apex dvb dongle
http://www.zap.co.il/model.aspx?modelid=735495 Does anyone know if this DVD dongle is supported by Linux? They are being sold for 99 NIS at one store. (not listed on zap) Geoff. -- geoffrey mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM Jerusalem Israel geoffreymendel...@gmail.com ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: [hackers-il] New Essay - FOSS Licences Wars
Hi all! I have published a new essay about free software licences: http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/ Any comments will be welcome. Tens of comments here already: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/09/08/25/1356213/Getting-Through-the-FOSS-License-Minefield -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: [hackers-il] New Essay - FOSS Licences Wars
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 19:29:31 Dotan Cohen wrote: Hi all! I have published a new essay about free software licences: http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences- wars/ Any comments will be welcome. Tens of comments here already: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/09/08/25/1356213/Getting-Through-the-F OSS-License-Minefield Hi Dotan! Thanks for submitting this story to Slashdot, (which got it accepted eventually). I submitted it too, but I didn't see it published. I'm not sure I understood the teaser paragraph: Here's an exercise: Write a GPLed server for solving Freecell that the graphical game would communicate with using TCP/IP or a different IPC mechanism. Easy, right? Except for that pesky licensing bit. Our own Shlomi Fish gives an overview of the various options in picking up a licence for one's FOSS project, and tries to give some guidelines choosing one. What I meant by giving the GPLed Freecell solving server example was that it's an option even if one only has found a strong-copylefted Freecell-solving library, which can work around the licence's limitations, and will allow you to use it withing programs of incompatible licences. On the other hand, you implied that it may not be an option due to the licence. But I may not read you correctly. Anyway, thanks - I'll try to read the comments when I have some spare cycles. Oh, and I'm planning to respond to Mikhael Goikhman (Migo) email too later as well. Regards, Shlomi Fish -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Original Riddles - http://www.shlomifish.org/puzzles/ God gave us two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we read. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: New Essay - FOSS Licences Wars
On 21 Aug 2009 19:58:13 +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote: I have published a new essay about free software licences: http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/ Any comments will be welcome. This article contains several factual errors as well as many arguments like I didn't read or read once and am unable to understand, so it should be bad, that makes it difficult to take the article seriously. But I will try to constructively comment anyway. 1) To use a term Wars together with FOSS Licenses is to seriously misunderstand the topic. Different licenses are for different needs. 2) Your catalogizing of Artistic License as weak copyleft is false. Noone (except for you) considers it copyleft, see wikipedia. 3) Your advice to use The Sleepycat License if one needs strong copyleft is very problematic in several aspects. First, The Sleepycat License is not the classical copyleft that mandates the free nature of the derivatives. It fails on at least one important property of the classical copyleft (i.e. GPL or GFDL) that is code interoperability. It is too easy to create derivative works that are under incompatible terms (think about any license that speaks about available sources, but incompatible with GPL; there are many of these). http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html Second, its use of reasonable conditions wording makes it too vague and open to all kinds of attacks. It is not even clear whether proprietary deriatives are allowed, and in which cases. I would say it has serious holes to be even considered Strong Copyleft. Anyone who uses this license for his own work should be prepared for it to be interpreted more as Permissive License than Copyleft License. Another problem of short license texts (see my point 11) is their ambiguity. It fully depends on the common practive and interpretation. If it is interpreted as yet another all-permissive license then it shares all their problems that the classical copyleft tries to solve, including the license proliferation. So it is irresponsible to blindly suggest The Sleepycat License for every programmer without describing its multiple problems. On the contrary, the GNU GPL was written and verified by the best lawers and found not to contain any known hole, was proven to be enforceable in courts, and does not have interoperability problem mentioned above. 4) To say GPL v3 has more restriction than v2 is to show ignorance on the topic. All GPL versions implement the same idea that was not changed since its start (enforce the four software freedoms for any evolution of the program). Just some bugs were fixed for the changed reality. 5) All classical copyleft license are incompatible between themselves, on purpose. The way to make them compatible is by adding explicit relicensing permission (say GPL v3 and AGPL v3 are mutually compatible). Or dual licensing, including the or later tip. 6) Your comments about Affero GPL are unfounded. It seems you think that this license is applicable to any normal (desktop) program. It is not. It is only applicable to a special program that was designed (and was born from the start) as a network interface (like web service) _and_ has a functionality to download its own source code over network. Then it is believed that removing this functionality in deriative works would mean turning such free software service into a non free software service, that would indicate a hole in Strong Copyleft in a multi-computer environment and in ability to enforce providing the four freedoms to users. There are cases when no other license alternatives for web services (designed to be free and trustful) exist other than AGPL. No sane user would/should use Online Secure Voting or other services if he can't verify its sources first. Including you. So please either remove your advice to avoid non-FOSS licenses, or remove your prejudice against AGPL. 7) You always use Licence spelling when you refer to the licenses, even if the official names have License spelling. I would not do this. 8) To advocate one MIT license in all cases is not wise. Then you would better start to advocate Loosy Software (5 freedoms, the fifth is to be able to convert to a closed source) and not Free Software (4 freedoms). 9) Unfortunately the section Bad Idea No. 6: Using the GPL or the LGPL deeply places the whole article into the troll category. It seems you are very confused. On one hand you use the Free Software definition by FSF, and on the other hand you dismiss the licences that implement this FSF definition in the most optimal, practical and preserving way. This section also sounds as FUD. If you don't understand GPL as you say (although it is crystal clear; enforce the 4 software freedoms for any evolution of the program, using legal language), you should not write an article about FOSS Licenses and start unneeded wars. Sorry to say this. 10) I had no problem understanding the Sleepycat licence, the Perl Artistic
