Approximately half of the Himalayan arc has ruptured in four great earthquakes in the past 100 years
(Figure 1). The largest region between the rupture zones of these recent events is a 500-800 km segment of
the Himalaya between the 1905 Kangra and the 1934 Bihar earthquakes, approximately between the
longitudes of Kathmandu and Delhi. Of importance in estimating the present slip potential of this segment,
termed the Central Gap by Khattri and Tyagi (1983), is the existence and severity of great historic
earthquakes that may have ruptured all or part of the gap. A severe earthquake occurred in Nepal in 1255
when "innumerable towns were utterly destroyed and thousands of their inhabitants killed" (Campbell,
December 1833) but the regional extent of this event is unknown. Other large pre-XX century earthquakes
in Nepal (1408, 1681, 1810, 1833, and 1866) are mentioned by Chitrakar and Pandey (1986) but none
appear to have been as damaging as the 13th century event, causing concern that considerable elastic strain
may be available presently to drive one or several M>8 earthquakes in the Central Gap.
An alternative mechanism to absorb slip between Tibet and India is to invoke the possibility of
aseismic slip (slow earthquakes or creep) over at least part of the region. Leveling data and recent GPS
measurements between India and central Nepal (Jackson and Bilham, 1994; Bürgmann et al., 1994) suggest
that creep processes that might otherwise release Indo-Asian convergence aseismically have been
insignificant in the past few years. If similar creep rates (2.5±2.5 mm/year) exist elsewhere along the arc
throughout the seismic cycle they are evidently inadequate to accommodate completely the slip budget
between India and southern Tibet, although they may delay rupture (Bilham et al., 1995). The possibility
that some Himalayan earthquakes may be slow events, with large slip but little radiated high-frequency
seismic energy, cannot be excluded (Sacks and Linde, 1981; Beroza and Jordan, 1990). Such events would
2 1833 earthquake Nepal
not appear in the historical record as great earthquakes although they could, in principal, release the elastic
strain associated with one.
Earthquakes in 1803, 1833 and 1866 appear to have occurred at least partly within the central gap
(Khattri, 1987) and the largest of these in terms of felt area is believed to be the 1833 event. Reports of the
1833 earthquake are found in newspapers starting the day after the earthquake, and these and other data are
collated in three issues of the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal in the months following the
earthquake by Prinsep (1833) and Campbell (1833), and by Baird Smith in two articles a decade later
(1843,1844). Summaries of these summaries are found subsequently in various catalogs and comparative
studies: Mallet 1852, 1855; T. Oldham 1883; R. D. Oldham, 1897; Dunn et al. 1939; Bapat et al, 1983
and Dunbar et al. 1990. The compilation by Dunbar et al. 1990, lists the event as severe and records its
location as 25.1 N and 85.3 E , near Patna south of the River Ganges, at the southern limit of intense
shaking described in 1833 reports. A location west of Kathmandu is favored by some authors (Seeber and
Armbruster, 1981) who suggest tentatively that it may have occurred in the Central Himalayan Gap.
Khattri and Tyagi (1983) place the earthquake approximately 130 km west of the Bihar 1934 epicenter on
the edges of the Central Gap and assign the event M=7.6, a location and magnitude consistent with the
findings of the present study. One purpose of this article is to estimate more precisely the location and
magnitude of the 1833 Nepal earthquake using authentic accounts found in newspapers and scientific articles
published soon after its occurrence.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Attachment...........
Attachment is the process whereby one individual seeks nearness to another individual. In parent-child interactions, attachment is mutual and reciprocal. The infant looks and smiles at the parents, who look and smile at the infant. Communication between child and parents is indeed basic at this level, but it is also profound.
Psychologist John Bowlby suggested that infants are born “preprogrammed” for certain behaviors that will guarantee bonding with the caregivers. The infant's crying, clinging, smiling, and “cooing” are designed to prompt parental feeding, holding, cuddling, and vocalizing. Parents can help instill trust in their infant as the child forms attachments. Eye contact, touching, and timely feedings are perhaps the most important ways. These, of course, also represent expressions of the love and affection parents have for their children.
Attachment is central to human existence, but so are separation and loss. Ultimately, relationships are interrupted, or they dissolve on their own. Children must learn that nothing human is permanent, though learning this concept is not as easy as it may first sound. According to Bowlby, children who are separated from their parents progress through three stages: protest, despair, and detachment. After first refusing to accept the separation, and then losing hope, the child finally accepts the separation and begins to respond to the attention of new caregivers.
Social deprivation, or the absence of attachment, produces profoundly negative effects on children. For instance, children who have been institutionalized without close or continuous attachments for long periods of time display pathological levels of depression, withdrawal, apathy, and anxiety.
Parenting in infancy
Cultural and community standards, the social environment, and their children's behavior determine parents' child-raising practices. Hence different parents have different ideas on responding to their children, communicating with them, and placing them into daycare.
Responding (for example, playing, vocalizing, feeding, touching) to an infant's needs is certainly important to the child's psychosocial development. In fact, children who display strong attachment tend to have highly responsive mothers. Does this mean that the caregivers should respond to everything an infant does? Probably not. Children must learn that all needs cannot be completely met all the time. The majority of caregivers respond most of the time to their infants, but not 100 percent of the time. Problems only seem to arise when primary caregivers respond to infants less than 25 percent of the time. The children of “nonresponding” mothers tend to be insecurely attached, which may lead to simultaneous over-dependence upon and rejection of authority figures later in adulthood.
Strong communication between parents and children leads to strong attachment and relationships. Mutuality, or “synchronous” interaction, particularly during the first few months, predicts a secure relationship between parents and infants. Mutual behaviors include taking turns approaching and withdrawing, looking and touching, and “talking” to each other.
With the first few months and years being so critical to children's future psychosocial development, some parents worry about having to place their infants and toddlers in daycare and preschool. Research suggests that children who attend daycare while both parents work are not at a disadvantage regarding development of self, prosocial behavior, or cognitive functioning. Many authorities argue that daycare, coupled with quality time with the parents whenever possible, provides better and earlier socialization than may otherwise occur.
Psychologist John Bowlby suggested that infants are born “preprogrammed” for certain behaviors that will guarantee bonding with the caregivers. The infant's crying, clinging, smiling, and “cooing” are designed to prompt parental feeding, holding, cuddling, and vocalizing. Parents can help instill trust in their infant as the child forms attachments. Eye contact, touching, and timely feedings are perhaps the most important ways. These, of course, also represent expressions of the love and affection parents have for their children.
Attachment is central to human existence, but so are separation and loss. Ultimately, relationships are interrupted, or they dissolve on their own. Children must learn that nothing human is permanent, though learning this concept is not as easy as it may first sound. According to Bowlby, children who are separated from their parents progress through three stages: protest, despair, and detachment. After first refusing to accept the separation, and then losing hope, the child finally accepts the separation and begins to respond to the attention of new caregivers.
Social deprivation, or the absence of attachment, produces profoundly negative effects on children. For instance, children who have been institutionalized without close or continuous attachments for long periods of time display pathological levels of depression, withdrawal, apathy, and anxiety.
Parenting in infancy
Cultural and community standards, the social environment, and their children's behavior determine parents' child-raising practices. Hence different parents have different ideas on responding to their children, communicating with them, and placing them into daycare.
Responding (for example, playing, vocalizing, feeding, touching) to an infant's needs is certainly important to the child's psychosocial development. In fact, children who display strong attachment tend to have highly responsive mothers. Does this mean that the caregivers should respond to everything an infant does? Probably not. Children must learn that all needs cannot be completely met all the time. The majority of caregivers respond most of the time to their infants, but not 100 percent of the time. Problems only seem to arise when primary caregivers respond to infants less than 25 percent of the time. The children of “nonresponding” mothers tend to be insecurely attached, which may lead to simultaneous over-dependence upon and rejection of authority figures later in adulthood.
Strong communication between parents and children leads to strong attachment and relationships. Mutuality, or “synchronous” interaction, particularly during the first few months, predicts a secure relationship between parents and infants. Mutual behaviors include taking turns approaching and withdrawing, looking and touching, and “talking” to each other.
With the first few months and years being so critical to children's future psychosocial development, some parents worry about having to place their infants and toddlers in daycare and preschool. Research suggests that children who attend daycare while both parents work are not at a disadvantage regarding development of self, prosocial behavior, or cognitive functioning. Many authorities argue that daycare, coupled with quality time with the parents whenever possible, provides better and earlier socialization than may otherwise occur.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Some part of .............
This story may not as sound as good since I am retelling it. It was more shaking when my teacher explained it to me. This is a true story. It will give you shivers up your spine. Well, it was Halloween (2008). My English teacher was away so we had a replacement. Since it was Halloween and English week, we had to write a scary story. We were all in the mood to be freaked out. It was raining as well! My teacher said that she will tell us a scary story. She said it was true so we were all excited. She once teached a year 12 (12th grade) boy. He had a girlfriend. This happened to his girlfriends best friend. She was in a babysitting business. She once baby sat a little toddler aged 1-3. She took good care of him. She fed him, changed him, bathed him, cuddled him, burped him and even rocked him to sleep. When he was sound asleep, the babysitter took him upstairs and into his room. She gently placed him in his cradle and went downstairs to read. While she was reading, the little boy would not stop crying. He would scream and scream. She would comfort him but he just would not stop screaming. So she thought it would be a good idea to ring his mother. She told him that she had done everything right but he would not stop crying. I think he is afraid of the life sizing clown in his room. The babysitter said. Clown? What clown? The mother said on the other end. You know the really big clown behind his door in his room? No, we have no clown. The mother shockley said. So the babysitter ran upstairs to see if the little boy was okay. She took a bed sheet and covered the clown. A few minutes later, the phone rang. It was the mother. The mother ordered the babysitter to ring the police and leave the house immediately. So she rescued the baby and rang the police. It turns out that the police found out that the life sizing clown was not a toy at all. It was a human being also known as a Pedi file. He dressed up and had make up like a clown. He hid behind the little boys door. And when the babysitter covered him up with a cloth, he stood really still and didnt even blink. This is a true story. You cant trust anyone these days. If you think of pulling this trick, I suggest you dont. Because the police will look for you, they will find you, and they will catch you.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Political world history
The political history of the world is the history of the various political entities created by the Human race throughout their existence on Earth and the way these states define their borders. . The history of political thinking goes back to antiquity. Political history, and thus the the history of political thinking throughout human existence stretches though up to Medieval period and the Renaissance. In the Age of Enlightenment, political entities expanded from basic systems of self-governance and monarchy to the complex democratic and communist systems that exist of the Industrialied and the Modern Era, in parallel, political systems have expanded from vaguely defined frontier-type boundaries, to the definite boundaries existing today.
Early developments
Although much of existing written history might be classified as diplomatic history - Thucydides, certainly, is among other things, highly concerned with the relations among states - the modern form of diplomatic history was codified in the 19th century by Leopold von Ranke, a German historian. Ranke wrote largely on the history of Early Modern Europe, using the diplomatic archives of the European powers (particularly the Venetians) to construct a detailed understanding of the history of Europe wie es eigentlich gewesen ("as it actually happened.") Ranke saw diplomatic history as the most important kind of history to write because of his idea of the "Primacy of Foreign Affairs" (Primat der Aussenpolitik), arguing that the concerns of international relations drive the internal development of the state. Ranke's understanding of diplomatic history relied on the large number of official documents produced by modern western governments as sources.
Ranke's understanding of the dominance of foreign policy, and hence an emphasis on diplomatic history, remained the dominant paradigm in historical writing through the first half of the twentieth century. This emphasis, combined with the effects of the War Guilt Clause in the Treaty of Versailles (1919) which ended the First World War, led to a huge amount of historical writing on the subject of the origins of the war in 1914, with the involved governments printing huge, carefully edited, collections of documents and numerous historians writing multi-volume histories of the origins of the war. In general, the early works in this vein, including Fritz Fischer's controversial (at the time) 1961 thesis that German goals of "world power" were the principal cause of the war, fit fairly comfortably into Ranke's emphasis on Aussenpolitik.
Modern developments
In the course of the 1960s, however, some German historians (notably Hans-Ulrich Wehler and his cohort) began to rebel against this idea, instead suggesting a "Primacy of Domestic Politics" (Primat der Innenpolitik), in which the insecurities of (in this case German) domestic policy drove the creation of foreign policy. This led to a considerable body of work interpreting the domestic policies of various states and the ways this influenced their conduct of foreign policy.
At the same time, the middle of the twentieth century began to see a general de-emphasis on diplomatic history. The French Annales school had already put an emphasis on the role of geography and economics on history, and of the importance of broad, slow cycles rather than the constant apparent movement of the "history of events" of high politics. The most important work of the Annales school, Fernand Braudel's The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, contains a traditional Rankean diplomatic history of Philip II's Mediterranean policy, but only as the third and shortest section of a work largely focusing on the broad cycles of history in the longue durée ("long term"). The Annales were broadly influential, leading to a turning away from diplomatic and other forms of political history towards an emphasis on broader trends of economic and environmental change. In the 1960s and 1970s, an increasing emphasis on giving a voice to the voiceless and writing the history of the underclasses, whether by using the quantitative statistical methods of social history or the more qualitative assessments of cultural history, also undermined the centrality of diplomatic history to the historical discipline.
Nevertheless, diplomatic history has always remained a historical field with a great interest to the general public, and considerable amounts of work are still done in the field, often in much the same way that Ranke pioneered in the middle years of the 19th century.
Reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_history#Political_world_history
Early developments
Although much of existing written history might be classified as diplomatic history - Thucydides, certainly, is among other things, highly concerned with the relations among states - the modern form of diplomatic history was codified in the 19th century by Leopold von Ranke, a German historian. Ranke wrote largely on the history of Early Modern Europe, using the diplomatic archives of the European powers (particularly the Venetians) to construct a detailed understanding of the history of Europe wie es eigentlich gewesen ("as it actually happened.") Ranke saw diplomatic history as the most important kind of history to write because of his idea of the "Primacy of Foreign Affairs" (Primat der Aussenpolitik), arguing that the concerns of international relations drive the internal development of the state. Ranke's understanding of diplomatic history relied on the large number of official documents produced by modern western governments as sources.
Ranke's understanding of the dominance of foreign policy, and hence an emphasis on diplomatic history, remained the dominant paradigm in historical writing through the first half of the twentieth century. This emphasis, combined with the effects of the War Guilt Clause in the Treaty of Versailles (1919) which ended the First World War, led to a huge amount of historical writing on the subject of the origins of the war in 1914, with the involved governments printing huge, carefully edited, collections of documents and numerous historians writing multi-volume histories of the origins of the war. In general, the early works in this vein, including Fritz Fischer's controversial (at the time) 1961 thesis that German goals of "world power" were the principal cause of the war, fit fairly comfortably into Ranke's emphasis on Aussenpolitik.
Modern developments
In the course of the 1960s, however, some German historians (notably Hans-Ulrich Wehler and his cohort) began to rebel against this idea, instead suggesting a "Primacy of Domestic Politics" (Primat der Innenpolitik), in which the insecurities of (in this case German) domestic policy drove the creation of foreign policy. This led to a considerable body of work interpreting the domestic policies of various states and the ways this influenced their conduct of foreign policy.
At the same time, the middle of the twentieth century began to see a general de-emphasis on diplomatic history. The French Annales school had already put an emphasis on the role of geography and economics on history, and of the importance of broad, slow cycles rather than the constant apparent movement of the "history of events" of high politics. The most important work of the Annales school, Fernand Braudel's The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, contains a traditional Rankean diplomatic history of Philip II's Mediterranean policy, but only as the third and shortest section of a work largely focusing on the broad cycles of history in the longue durée ("long term"). The Annales were broadly influential, leading to a turning away from diplomatic and other forms of political history towards an emphasis on broader trends of economic and environmental change. In the 1960s and 1970s, an increasing emphasis on giving a voice to the voiceless and writing the history of the underclasses, whether by using the quantitative statistical methods of social history or the more qualitative assessments of cultural history, also undermined the centrality of diplomatic history to the historical discipline.
Nevertheless, diplomatic history has always remained a historical field with a great interest to the general public, and considerable amounts of work are still done in the field, often in much the same way that Ranke pioneered in the middle years of the 19th century.
Reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_history#Political_world_history
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Free Software Definition
We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software. From time to time we revise this definition to clarify it. If you would like to review the changes we've made, please see the History section below for more information.
Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.
In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software.
Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours — a practice known as “tivoization” or (through blacklisting) as “secure boot” — freedom 1 become a theoretical fiction rather than a practical freedom. This is not sufficient.
One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free subroutines and modules. If the program's license says that you cannot merge in a suitably-licensed existing module, such as if it requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add, then the license is too restrictive to qualify as free.
In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively change its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give cause, the software is not free.
However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them.
Free software does not mean non-commercial. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter. If your modifications are limited, in substance, to changes that someone else considers an improvement, that is not freedom.
However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Rules that if you make your version available in this way, you must make it available in that way also can be acceptable too, on the same condition. (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of whether to publish your version at all.) Rules that require release of source code to the users for versions that you put into public use are also acceptable. It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one, or that you identify yourself on your modifications.
In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But non-copylefted free software also exists. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to use copyleft, but if your program is non-copylefted free software, it is still basically ethical.
See Categories of Free Software for a description of how free software, copylefted software and other categories of software relate to each other.
Sometimes government export control regulations and trade sanctions can constrain your freedom to distribute copies of programs internationally. Software developers do not have the power to eliminate or override these restrictions, but what they can and must do is refuse to impose them as conditions of use of the program. In this way, the restrictions will not affect activities and people outside the jurisdictions of these governments. Thus, free software licenses must not require obedience to any export regulations as a condition of any of the essential freedoms.
Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never anticipated (though this does happen occasionally). However, some free software licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a much larger range of possible restrictions. That means there are many possible ways such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and non-free.
We can't possibly list all the ways that might happen. If a contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably conclude it is non-free.
When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms like give away or for free, because those terms imply that the issue is about price, not freedom. Some common terms such as piracy embody opinions we hope you won't endorse. See Confusing Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding for a discussion of these terms. We also have a list of translations of free software into various languages.
Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software definition require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it fits their spirit as well as the precise words. If a license includes unconscionable restrictions, we reject it, even if we did not anticipate the issue in these criteria. Sometimes a license requirement raises an issue that calls for extensive thought, including discussions with a lawyer, before we can decide if the requirement is acceptable. When we reach a conclusion about a new issue, we often update these criteria to make it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify.
If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free software license, see our list of licenses. If the license you are concerned with is not listed there, you can ask us about it by sending us email at.
If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the FSF by writing to that address. The proliferation of different free software licenses means increased work for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you find an existing Free Software license that meets your needs.
If that isn't possible, if you really need a new license, with our help you can ensure that the license really is a Free Software license and avoid various practical problems.
Beyond Software
Software manuals must be free, for the same reasons that software must be free, and because the manuals are in effect part of the software.
The same arguments also make sense for other kinds of works of practical use — that is to say, works that embody useful knowledge, such as educational works and reference works. Wikipedia is the best known example.
Any kind of work can be free, and the definition of free software has been extended to a definition of free cultural works applicable to any kind of works.
Open Source?
Another group has started using the term open source to mean something close (but not identical) to free software. We prefer the term free software because, once you have heard that it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The word open never refers to freedom.
Thank you
refrance
http://www.gnu.org
Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.
In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software.
Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours — a practice known as “tivoization” or (through blacklisting) as “secure boot” — freedom 1 become a theoretical fiction rather than a practical freedom. This is not sufficient.
One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free subroutines and modules. If the program's license says that you cannot merge in a suitably-licensed existing module, such as if it requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add, then the license is too restrictive to qualify as free.
In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively change its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give cause, the software is not free.
However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them.
Free software does not mean non-commercial. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter. If your modifications are limited, in substance, to changes that someone else considers an improvement, that is not freedom.
However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Rules that if you make your version available in this way, you must make it available in that way also can be acceptable too, on the same condition. (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of whether to publish your version at all.) Rules that require release of source code to the users for versions that you put into public use are also acceptable. It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one, or that you identify yourself on your modifications.
In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But non-copylefted free software also exists. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to use copyleft, but if your program is non-copylefted free software, it is still basically ethical.
See Categories of Free Software for a description of how free software, copylefted software and other categories of software relate to each other.
Sometimes government export control regulations and trade sanctions can constrain your freedom to distribute copies of programs internationally. Software developers do not have the power to eliminate or override these restrictions, but what they can and must do is refuse to impose them as conditions of use of the program. In this way, the restrictions will not affect activities and people outside the jurisdictions of these governments. Thus, free software licenses must not require obedience to any export regulations as a condition of any of the essential freedoms.
Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never anticipated (though this does happen occasionally). However, some free software licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a much larger range of possible restrictions. That means there are many possible ways such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and non-free.
We can't possibly list all the ways that might happen. If a contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably conclude it is non-free.
When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms like give away or for free, because those terms imply that the issue is about price, not freedom. Some common terms such as piracy embody opinions we hope you won't endorse. See Confusing Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding for a discussion of these terms. We also have a list of translations of free software into various languages.
Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software definition require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it fits their spirit as well as the precise words. If a license includes unconscionable restrictions, we reject it, even if we did not anticipate the issue in these criteria. Sometimes a license requirement raises an issue that calls for extensive thought, including discussions with a lawyer, before we can decide if the requirement is acceptable. When we reach a conclusion about a new issue, we often update these criteria to make it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify.
If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free software license, see our list of licenses. If the license you are concerned with is not listed there, you can ask us about it by sending us email at
If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the FSF by writing to that address. The proliferation of different free software licenses means increased work for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you find an existing Free Software license that meets your needs.
If that isn't possible, if you really need a new license, with our help you can ensure that the license really is a Free Software license and avoid various practical problems.
Beyond Software
Software manuals must be free, for the same reasons that software must be free, and because the manuals are in effect part of the software.
The same arguments also make sense for other kinds of works of practical use — that is to say, works that embody useful knowledge, such as educational works and reference works. Wikipedia is the best known example.
Any kind of work can be free, and the definition of free software has been extended to a definition of free cultural works applicable to any kind of works.
Open Source?
Another group has started using the term open source to mean something close (but not identical) to free software. We prefer the term free software because, once you have heard that it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The word open never refers to freedom.
Thank you
refrance
http://www.gnu.org
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
How to Make Friends
How to Make Friends
Many people find it hard to make friends. It really isn't, so get out of your shell and remember that if you love yourself, others will too. Especially being a teen, making friends can be hard or easy depending upon several factors.
Steps
- Relax. It's all about confidence - if you are nervous or try too hard to look cool you'll just act weird, so you won't make any friends. You will stand out as overdoing something. You have to think of good reasons of why someone would like to meet you, think of the virtues you have. So relax, people will like you for passing a peaceful energy.
- Be nice. How do you expect them to like you if you are not nice? Put a calm smile on your face and find out what you and the person you are trying to befriend have in common. You'll be able to be more comfortable if you find out that other person has things in common with you.
- Be a good listener. Give attention to what they say, look straight in their eyes and show you're paying attention. Nod, agree, show you find that is interesting. It's important to be a good listener, because everyone likes to be heard, and if this person feels like you're listening to them, your new friend will enjoy your company more.
- Be yourself. I know you've heard it a lot of times, but no one really likes a poseur - people would like the real you better for your virtues, not a fake person no one really knows. So just be you, speak your mind, that way people will enjoy being around you a lot more and feel comfortable that you're not trying to deceive them or are moving so fast that they can't keep up (being fake, trying to change what you truly are in a short period of time). Be yourself and you will get people that like you for you. If they don't like you for being yourself, then it is time to move on to someone else. Be natural, be the way that you were born to be... God did put you on Earth for some purpose and show it off.
- Develop friendships. You may talk to someone now but soon they'll forget you if you stop. You better take a time to say hi to them everyday and ask how are they doing. Say their name as often as you can, like every once every 3-5 sentences you say, unless you know it'd seem awkward. When you greet them, say things like, "Hey there, Alex!", "How've you been, Sarah?", "I hope classes are going well with you, Josh!" If you do that everyday, they'll be happy that you care about them and remembered them, so they won't forget you and you guys will be good friends. Also, if you say the other person's name out more often, and they hate it, they can come to appreciate it, because of you!
- Include those friends in your social life. Invite your new friends to go out together with you, go to mall or hang out at a cool place. You guys must have fun together, so you can introduce your new friends to old friends and build your social circle from there, with people that accept each other.
Tips
- Get your new friend's phone number, e-mail addresses and give them yours; keep in touch.
- Don't try too hard, relax and be yourself - they will like you.
- Have fun with your new friends; but don't forget old friends.
- Stop thinking you are not cool enough to talk to them. They will have good reasons to want to talk to you after they meet you - think of your virtues!
- Smile! People are drawn to happy, positive people!
Warnings
- Don't try to change yourself in order to fit in to make new friends. A good friend sometimes does things he or she doesn't want to do, such as helping a friend move or going to see a band that you don't really like, but you should never give into pressure to do something you think is wrong.
- Don't be untrue to your convictions and beliefs, and if this causes you to lose some friends, you're better off without them. You'll also find that your integrity may help you win better friends, and if you just "be yourself" you'll make friends who like you for who you are.
- Never leave old good-friends because you may like someone else more. This is a big, bad mistake. It's great to have different groups of friends, but if you abandon one group for another, you may soon find yourself without any friends at all.
- Don't try to buy friends by giving people gifts or money. While it's nice to give a friend a gift sometimes, if you go overboard, it's asking for trouble. A person who will "be your friend" without responding with little things in turn, when you buy him or her things, probably just likes the things you gave them--not you.
Thank you get enjoy
Monday, August 24, 2009
Geting old
The man get older, they see less and less of life before them, so they are tempted to retire from active pursuits and, instead, chase and hold fast to what has passed. We yearn for our glory days, replaying our golden moments while present opportunities slip by. (Even the best efforts to save someone’s life are futile. They only postpone death – and, even then, only for a little while.) The only New Testament reference to retirement that I can think of is the one where a man has done well, so he builds bigger barns to store his stuff so that he can sit back, take his ease, and “eat, drink, and be merry.” The day his preparations are complete, he dies (Luke 12:16-21). The moral of the story is don’t cling to the past, or rest on your laurels. We have been given, by God, lives to live. We should live them until we squeeze out every last drop of life.
As far as I know, no one has yet written a Wild at Heart for the elderly. I am not certain that anyone has to. The principles remain the same, though the understanding of “adventure” may need to be modified. When Carl chooses to save the house instead of Kevin, he puts out the flames and walks through the door. He tries to rearrange the furniture, to put his life back together. He goes to a closet and discovers his wife’s Adventure Book. He turns to the part where he thought she had saved out pages on which to write all of the things she would do once she arrived at Paradise Falls. Accidentally turning a page, he discovers that she had filled them all with photos and captions of their long marriage – a grand adventure, in her eyes. At the end, she writes that he is now to go on more adventures of his own.
Ellie’s reconceptualizing “adventure” to include the journey of their life together demonstrates that, viewed rightly, even the most mundane activities possess tremendous value. Carl returns home with Russell and becomes his surrogate grandfather. Carl keeps living, giving himself away, and teaching Russell the lessons of manhood – including the importance of keeping one’s promises. Snapshots of their relationship fill the adventure book of Carl’s life. He is no longer waiting to die, he is dying to live.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
An bitter experience of losing purse!!!!!!
An experience of losing purse!!!!!!
I have heard many times of losing purse from others. But I have no more experience about it. But I got the new experience of losing purse around 11 pm yesterday. People can guess that I lost my purse at Pashupati in mums, Girl’s and aunty’s jam (yesterday was teej). It is false because I was busy on making report for HLCIT till 4 pm in my room. So, no time to go pashupati to see mum’s dance. After 4 pm I went to attend a SFD 09 Planning Meeting at Informatics College. After meeting I went on bike with Hempal Dai by passing narrow and congested road at Ghattekulo. We arrived Varosha Hospital at around 8 pm. Hempal dai entered into the hospital to take report but I did not. I went to a street vendor and asked for a cigarette. I paid Rs 5. In the mean time, I remembered that someone was asking me for Rs. 300 about 3 hrs before. Then I saw my pursed. I found only Rs. 210 in my purse. Then I put my purse in my pocket and backed to bike parking where I saw a discussion between Nepal Government’s driver and the hospital guard. I knew that the driver hit the wall of parking and discussion was being more excited. But Hempal Dai arrived at the same time. Then we moved from there to bank. Hempal dai took the money from ATM and we took our dinner at Thakali Vansa Ghar at baneshor. Hempal Dai paid the bill so I don’t need to take my hand into my purse. So, whether my purse was there or not, I don’t know. Then we backed to room and gave continuity to report making. Around 10.30 pm, hempal dai moved to his home from my room but I had to mail to a office in east of Nepal. After mailing I changed my dress and started refreshing. At that time my hand reached at my pocket but no purse! I am shocked because my pockets were locked with its button; digi cam was there but no purse. It was third purse I have used in my life time, which was bought in five rupees from a friend. It was not in well condition but was adjustable to use. So I bought it in five rupees in promising 50 rupees more if it lasted more than 30 days. He has no doubt because he can take money from different way from me so he gave me it immediately in 5 rupees. So the purse value was Rs. 5 only till now.
I have no confidence what sort of things were there in my purse. I have not love till now, So, I am 100% confidence that there was no any ladies’ photos ( I mean girlfriends’ photos) But I think My some pass port size photos, Rs. 210, some visiting cards and a ATM card was there. Though the overall value was not high, losses are loss, not?? I am worry now because how it is possible since my pockets were locked. Is it not a miracle???? Though it is a minor loss it gives me tension as I got the betraying from my girl friend. Dear reader, if you have any idea or guess where and how I lost my purse, please give me your responses……..
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)