That would be good evidence that the system doesn't work - the house price market in the UK is way out of whack with the prices increasing at many times the inflation rate (round here you can't buy a house unless you're some kind of stock broker or diamond thief - and the price keeps going up. We're far from the most expensive as well).
With a public auction you'd keep the price down and have to compete.
gpl3 opens up patent issues. If you compile an app with a gpl3 gcc does it nullify your patents? Probably not.. but for a manager it's a valid question - are you willing to bet your business on that? Of course not - you'll go to your lawyers who will look at the license and tell you what it safe to do.
Now you're using a nice LGPL library. It goes LGPL3 (which I presume will exist at some point) - same question. Back to the lawyers.
All of this cost time, money and uncertainty. Most businesses will take the easy way out and just blanket ban gpl3 until they absolutely have to pay lawyers to look at it. Heck even we have and we're a very small company.
Kernel is GPL2 only. GPL3 license states GPLv3 or late.
They're incompatible licenses - a wholesale change to GPL3 is about as likely (and as feasable) as a change to BSD... in fact BSD would be easier as you could do it piecemeal.
Not sure what you'd need to cut out... the gay references? That's just RTD's writing style - the new series of Dr.Who has a few too. The problem is if you cut those out several episodes of Torchwood wouldn't make sense at all (not that some of them made a lot of sense to start with...).
Try gizmo. Really nice... when you make a call you can select 'internet call' and it asks which AP to connect to and works seamlessly, then disconnects afterwards.
Max is hellishly expensive though.. as you'd expect for a service allowing 10GB with VOIP.
Vodafone has a similar structure - £7.50 for data (about 220mb IIRC) w/o VOIP/IM and £22 for 3GB of data (with IM but without VOIP). No equiv. to the 10GB one. The difference to the tmobile plan is you can choose to use VOIP even on the £7.50 one but they'll charge you £2/mb for the privilege - this puts it a bit more expensive than making the call directly in the first place.
Is T-mobile required by law to route calls to other service providers?
Not by law. The regulator (OFCOM) states that they must route all numbers to other providers, and they have a number of things they can do to enforce this eg. heavy fines.
However it may not be malice in this case just sheer incompetence. Unlike TCP/IP the phone network doesn't have any concept of a routing protocol.. new number blocks are propogated literally by the companies emailing each other with lists. The new 055 block (designed for non-geographic numbers normally VOIP terminated) for example is only currently routed by about half the providers in the UK although this is increasing (usually as a result of user complaints).
Cisco IOS is normally full of bugs - you pick the release that works best for you and stick with it.
example: I was runing an ED version of my router firmware. It worked fine. They eventually produced a GD version, which in a fit of madness I upgraded to. It wrote an invalid config directive in startup-config and wouldn't boot properly.
Cisco hardware however seems to be rock solid, and their support is pretty good. It's just their software...
Just pick out the MAC related to the range for the phones and block them til a firmware update can come out and resolve the issue.
Two potential problems:
1. There's probably an 'apple' range of MAC addresses not a separate 'iphone' one. All the profs. with ibooks are gonna be pissed. 2. It'll take about an hour before the students figure out what's going on and reassign the MAC addresses on their iphones to something different.
Not bizarre at all.. it's used for subnetting. eg. your dept. has a/24, and you have 2 sub-departments that you give a/16 each. Proxy arp allows a router sitting on that subnet to respond to the arp request on the/24 block without having to reconfigure all the routers beyond it to 'know' that you're routing those specific IPs not responding to them directly.
It's more common than you'd think in companies.. especially large ones, where the IT infrastructure is very disjointed and getting any kind of unified address allocation is nearly impossible.
ISC DHCP does it I believe. Windows DHCP doesn't (it's quite possible on a windows network to have the dhcp server assign an existing address.. much fun ensues as you run all over the office trying to find the other machine with that address).
Probably longer than that. It's based on the european DVB standards (which is partly why the boxes are so cheap) and encrypting the channels has been ruled out - to the point that very few of the boxes produced since the ondigital debacle several years ago even have CAM slots.
To encrypt a music channel you'd have to force 70 million people to buy new freeview decoders (by 2012 everyone will have at least one as the analogue signal will start disappearing). Not gonna happen.
In the UK even using a VCR is technically a copyright violation - we never updated our laws to cope with the 20th century (and we have no hope with the 21st).
Of course no court in the land would prosecute someone for recording a TV programme, so the law is widely ignored, creating a worse situation since nobody gives a crap about it.
Repeat after me: GPS *receivers* are not transmitters.
Reading the daily mail you might think it's true, but then reading that rag you might think a lot of bullshit things are true.
You can't track anything with gps without a back-channel to send the data - and cars are reasonably short of those (unless you count mobile phones which can be tracked to a few metres anyway).
The big deal is that if you take a project and use gplv3 code with it the whole thing becomes gplv3, but it doesn't work the other way around because the licenses are incompatible.
This creates a split - gplv2 projects and gplv3 projects, whereas previously there were only gpl projects.
gpl has always been a bitch to work with but now it's doubly so because you have to check which *version* of the gpl is in use, and you could be left high and dry if a project you're linking to goes gplv3 on you (a lot of samba users are probably feeling this right now).
You can because the 'or later' comes from the preamble not the license itself, so removing that isn't a license change.
You don't actually have to remove it. Just write a significant change to the code and license that without the 'or later' thus nullifying the clause on the other code (since it's impossible to distribute the whole things as gplv3 it becomes impossible to distribute it at all as gplv3, as the gpl itself demands).
It's a very good idea to do this so you retain control over your code - I personally don't want people relicensing my code under gplv3, so I don't have 'or later'. If they want to change the license they come back to me and (if they're an individual) give me a good reason, or (if they're a company) bribe me.
Unlikely to be true. Motherboard vendors don't release new updates for microcode updates, only for bugs - and then often only for the first couple of months of the motherboards' life... and even then they may not actually include the updates (eg. the latest bios for the mobo on my big server was released in may and includes no such updates).
Possibly, but UAC can and does fail like this. You can get the 'do you want to do this?' box, click OK and have nothing at all happen - for example I had a vista box do that consistently when deleting items from the desktop - the only way to delete items was to start up and administrative shell and delete using the command line as the gui was totally broken.
Vista has a large number of problems (I've run it since the RC and have probably hit about half of them) and isn't production ready yet.. but then XP really didn't get there until SP1 or SP2 (depending on what you wanted to use it for.. personally I'd say SP2 was when they finally got it working).
Companies certainly shouldn't be rolling it out yet - it's just not had long enough in the field. Heck, half the companies I work with are just about rolling out XP.
Java does have upgrade issues just the same - I worked on one project that was written on java 1.3 and simply couldn't be ported because there were too many changes (different parameters to many functions, plus the killer was some stuff didn't appear to work at all in the 1.4 variant when the client was behind MS Proxy server.. never fathomed that one). Luckily you can run your own private JRE without affecting everything else on the machine (we tended to say one machine == 1 application though as is common in the windows world - this app wouldn't run on any other platform either.. it was ancient and porting it would have been a complete rewrite, java not helping one tiny bit..).
Slashdot Mirror
In that case, the buyers are morons. Seriously, if you can't understand that someone might try to do the same thing as you do, you really are stupid.
Buyers *are* morons. Which means that it'll happen - and happen a lot.
Great for the seller.. they'll get to sell something at way above what it's worth. Sucks for the genuine buyers who'll be outpriced by the morons.
That would be good evidence that the system doesn't work - the house price market in the UK is way out of whack with the prices increasing at many times the inflation rate (round here you can't buy a house unless you're some kind of stock broker or diamond thief - and the price keeps going up. We're far from the most expensive as well).
With a public auction you'd keep the price down and have to compete.
gpl3 opens up patent issues. If you compile an app with a gpl3 gcc does it nullify your patents? Probably not.. but for a manager it's a valid question - are you willing to bet your business on that? Of course not - you'll go to your lawyers who will look at the license and tell you what it safe to do.
Now you're using a nice LGPL library. It goes LGPL3 (which I presume will exist at some point) - same question. Back to the lawyers.
All of this cost time, money and uncertainty. Most businesses will take the easy way out and just blanket ban gpl3 until they absolutely have to pay lawyers to look at it. Heck even we have and we're a very small company.
Now do you understand why the GPL can't place requirements on people who don't distribute?
Actually it does.
If you link to a GPL library *even if you never distribute that library* your application becomes bound by the terms of the GPL.
That's the whole Mysql business model in fact.
No that's true.
Kernel is GPL2 only.
GPL3 license states GPLv3 or late.
They're incompatible licenses - a wholesale change to GPL3 is about as likely (and as feasable) as a change to BSD... in fact BSD would be easier as you could do it piecemeal.
Old versions of samba exist. It'll just fork. There's already a fork - samba-tng - and we don't know what's happening to that yet.
Not sure what you'd need to cut out... the gay references? That's just RTD's writing style - the new series of Dr.Who has a few too. The problem is if you cut those out several episodes of Torchwood wouldn't make sense at all (not that some of them made a lot of sense to start with...).
Oh and it's properly called the Whoniverse.
Try gizmo. Really nice... when you make a call you can select 'internet call' and it asks which AP to connect to and works seamlessly, then disconnects afterwards.
Max is hellishly expensive though.. as you'd expect for a service allowing 10GB with VOIP.
Vodafone has a similar structure - £7.50 for data (about 220mb IIRC) w/o VOIP/IM and £22 for 3GB of data (with IM but without VOIP). No equiv. to the 10GB one. The difference to the tmobile plan is you can choose to use VOIP even on the £7.50 one but they'll charge you £2/mb for the privilege - this puts it a bit more expensive than making the call directly in the first place.
Is T-mobile required by law to route calls to other service providers?
Not by law. The regulator (OFCOM) states that they must route all numbers to other providers, and they have a number of things they can do to enforce this eg. heavy fines.
However it may not be malice in this case just sheer incompetence. Unlike TCP/IP the phone network doesn't have any concept of a routing protocol.. new number blocks are propogated literally by the companies emailing each other with lists. The new 055 block (designed for non-geographic numbers normally VOIP terminated) for example is only currently routed by about half the providers in the UK although this is increasing (usually as a result of user complaints).
Cisco IOS is normally full of bugs - you pick the release that works best for you and stick with it.
example: I was runing an ED version of my router firmware. It worked fine. They eventually produced a GD version, which in a fit of madness I upgraded to. It wrote an invalid config directive in startup-config and wouldn't boot properly.
Cisco hardware however seems to be rock solid, and their support is pretty good. It's just their software...
Just pick out the MAC related to the range for the phones and block them til a firmware update
can come out and resolve the issue.
Two potential problems:
1. There's probably an 'apple' range of MAC addresses not a separate 'iphone' one. All the profs. with ibooks are gonna be pissed.
2. It'll take about an hour before the students figure out what's going on and reassign the MAC addresses on their iphones to something different.
Not bizarre at all.. it's used for subnetting. eg. your dept. has a /24, and you have 2 sub-departments that you give a /16 each. Proxy arp allows a router sitting on that subnet to respond to the arp request on the /24 block without having to reconfigure all the routers beyond it to 'know' that you're routing those specific IPs not responding to them directly.
It's more common than you'd think in companies.. especially large ones, where the IT infrastructure is very disjointed and getting any kind of unified address allocation is nearly impossible.
ISC DHCP does it I believe. Windows DHCP doesn't (it's quite possible on a windows network to have the dhcp server assign an existing address.. much fun ensues as you run all over the office trying to find the other machine with that address).
Probably longer than that. It's based on the european DVB standards (which is partly why the boxes are so cheap) and encrypting the channels has been ruled out - to the point that very few of the boxes produced since the ondigital debacle several years ago even have CAM slots.
To encrypt a music channel you'd have to force 70 million people to buy new freeview decoders (by 2012 everyone will have at least one as the analogue signal will start disappearing). Not gonna happen.
In the UK even using a VCR is technically a copyright violation - we never updated our laws to cope with the 20th century (and we have no hope with the 21st).
Of course no court in the land would prosecute someone for recording a TV programme, so the law is widely ignored, creating a worse situation since nobody gives a crap about it.
Repeat after me: GPS *receivers* are not transmitters.
Reading the daily mail you might think it's true, but then reading that rag you might think a lot of bullshit things are true.
You can't track anything with gps without a back-channel to send the data - and cars are reasonably short of those (unless you count mobile phones which can be tracked to a few metres anyway).
The big deal is that if you take a project and use gplv3 code with it the whole thing becomes gplv3, but it doesn't work the other way around because the licenses are incompatible.
This creates a split - gplv2 projects and gplv3 projects, whereas previously there were only gpl projects.
gpl has always been a bitch to work with but now it's doubly so because you have to check which *version* of the gpl is in use, and you could be left high and dry if a project you're linking to goes gplv3 on you (a lot of samba users are probably feeling this right now).
If gpl3 was adopted by linux it'd kill it in the embedded space - which is one of its major markets.
You can because the 'or later' comes from the preamble not the license itself, so removing that isn't a license change.
You don't actually have to remove it. Just write a significant change to the code and license that without the 'or later' thus nullifying the clause on the other code (since it's impossible to distribute the whole things as gplv3 it becomes impossible to distribute it at all as gplv3, as the gpl itself demands).
It's a very good idea to do this so you retain control over your code - I personally don't want people relicensing my code under gplv3, so I don't have 'or later'. If they want to change the license they come back to me and (if they're an individual) give me a good reason, or (if they're a company) bribe me.
Unlikely to be true. Motherboard vendors don't release new updates for microcode updates, only for bugs - and then often only for the first couple of months of the motherboards' life... and even then they may not actually include the updates (eg. the latest bios for the mobo on my big server was released in may and includes no such updates).
Possibly, but UAC can and does fail like this. You can get the 'do you want to do this?' box, click OK and have nothing at all happen - for example I had a vista box do that consistently when deleting items from the desktop - the only way to delete items was to start up and administrative shell and delete using the command line as the gui was totally broken.
Vista has a large number of problems (I've run it since the RC and have probably hit about half of them) and isn't production ready yet.. but then XP really didn't get there until SP1 or SP2 (depending on what you wanted to use it for.. personally I'd say SP2 was when they finally got it working).
Companies certainly shouldn't be rolling it out yet - it's just not had long enough in the field. Heck, half the companies I work with are just about rolling out XP.
Java does have upgrade issues just the same - I worked on one project that was written on java 1.3 and simply couldn't be ported because there were too many changes (different parameters to many functions, plus the killer was some stuff didn't appear to work at all in the 1.4 variant when the client was behind MS Proxy server.. never fathomed that one). Luckily you can run your own private JRE without affecting everything else on the machine (we tended to say one machine == 1 application though as is common in the windows world - this app wouldn't run on any other platform either.. it was ancient and porting it would have been a complete rewrite, java not helping one tiny bit..).
GPLv3 would change this how exactly? SPF is a speficication, as is SenderID. Software licenses are irrelevant to them.
You don't even do that.
You pull the off-air mpeg2 directly off something like a toppy so you get it as originally broadcast with no degradation.