Tell that to all the developers releasing 'Mac' versions of their games when in reality it's simply the Windows version in a pretty Cider (Wine) package. I'm not disputing you by a long shot, I find the practice extremely obnoxious, but many developers aren't above doing it... EA is probably the most rampant that I've noticed.
Sorry, Wine is an emulator. The authors created the acronym in order to separate themselves from "full" machine virtualization. Technically speaking, Wine does more than provide a reimplementation of the Windows API, it emulates certain aspects of the windows kernel and translates signals and exceptions into the X equivalent and vice-versa. Don't believe all the marketing you hear.
Actually survey's tend to be biased in the other direction. In other words, the trend tends to be that a greater percentage of people would steal but some of them don't want to admit it. I think that theft here is probably including some things that many people wouldn't conventionally think of.
A clause that broad would never hold up in court. It would have to be a company in direct competition with IBM over the same clientele. While I realize IBM has their fingers in a lot of different cookie jars, all CNC's must have reasonable limitations. A CNC can't keep someone with a trade skill from practicing it except for in specific circumstances where it could be proven that it would directly hurt their business. Plus, that's face it, if you have a choice between being unable to support your family and possibly getting caught for breaking a non-compete what would you do? Better yet, what are they going to do? Sue you when your just steps away from bankruptcy? It would be preferable to get a job at a company not in competition, but if you are to the point where you are getting desperate -- worst thing that would happen is that you wouldn't be hired for the job because that company found out about your non-compete.
It is getting harder, part of the reason why more-and-more families are two income families. The large variation in COL in some areas makes it hard to relate, I'm just stating that a neophyte is setting themselves up for disappointment if they are demanding Doctorate-level pay on a Bachelor degree or less. 65k is quite literally what many desirable Doctorate-level jobs around here start at -- veterinarians, lawyers, pharmicists, you name it. Your area may be completely different, in which case you should probably raise the numbers to a level that makes sense.
There are very few degrees beyond computer science and engineering, unless your simply lucky, which can expect such high wages. The honeymoon is over, we have more competent people in this sector every year, it's natural for us to want wages to go up, but as our skills become more common place we have less to fall back on. It's funny really, it sounds like in your instance you went on to get another degree, but there is no shortage of people on here actually complaining about struggling to find 65k with a bachelor degree and no experience -- a number which, at least where I'm from, people graduating with degrees in veterinary medicine and law are also aiming for. Perhaps its time we, as a group, get over ourselves.
It can be pretty easily done and at very little cost. An email server doesn't require much in the way of hardware, and it's incredibly easy these days to build (or buy) yourself a computer that uses less wattage than a lightbulb. If you get yourself an mx backup server (which can be had for about $10/yr) most standard home broadband connections would be plenty stable.
There are a lot of Windows games out there that support both OpenGL and DirectX. Most of the successful Cider ports are games that support both DirectX and OpenGL on Windows.
I do believe Mac OS 8/9 supported OpenGL. Furthermore, Quickdraw is still part of OSX. Yes, its deprecated, but its still there. Some software and well used graphics libraries, such as the current stable version of SDL, still use it.
Unfortunately its gotten popular enough that I've become skeptical whenever I hear of a new "mac port" these days. I do feel its not too far off to say that the majority of big budget games in the past 2-3 years have used Cider. I have no facts to back up this claim of course, its just what I've experienced. Warhammer Online, EVE Online, Dragon Age, Spore, Call of Duty, Command and Conquer, and City of Heroes, would be a few. Blizzard seems to be one of the last companies that still develops natively for Mac, but this is its first new release in what, seven years? EA certainly does not release natively. I heard Bioshock was actually native, but it came out years too late. Unfortunately the current state of Mac gaming seems to be that if you want it in a reasonable time frame, it'll be using Cider.
From what I saw of the quoted law in the article, allowing unencrypted data over a medium would result in the hospital being prosecuted as well as the employee. It wouldn't really matter if the employee signed an agreement, its the hospital allowing the security breech by making it available. Incidentally, it seems HTTPS is perfectly acceptable, so I don't really understand what the problem is with employees accessing webmail over HTTPS. I guess you could argue that unencrypted data could possibly be stored in cache and what-not.
I've never worked in a company/organization where management has a complete disconnect between policy/reality and what they want. Maybe that makes me lucky, but in my experience if an organization goes this far to implement policy the manager is quite aware of it and accompanying consequences. Thus if a manager requires an employee to access email and IT is unable to provide said employee with access, it's the IT dept that will be seen as incompetent, not the employee.
That would be a legal snafu, they couldn't require you to access email outside while at the same time refusing to allow you access. In this case they would either have to provide the employee with a computer, allow mail forwarding, or drop the issue altogether.
They certainly can't require you to install anything on your computer, that much is for sure. In the same vein, they don't have to allow you access. It's hard to suggest anything knowing as little as I/we do. You said you have access to webmail. Since most people don't have a static IP, how exactly are they planning on limiting user's access (compliant or otherwise) from unprivileged outside locations? For instance, from what your describing, if you complied, you could access your email from home on your computer. What happens if you access it from a different computer, how exactly are they being positive that your accessing your email from the computer that your supposed to be? I'm guessing some sort of Radius authentication could be worked out in which certain software credentials would be required.. but that would be a real pain..
I'd agree with that, but it seems like we're being forced to choose between two unacceptable situations. Regulation seems to be the lesser evil in some cases, but not all.
"So you're saying that poorly conceived and poorly executed deregulation is a problem with regulation?" No, I'm saying poorly conceived or poorly executed regulation makes it impossible to have a successful deregulation, the infrastructure just won't be there. If a monopoly, or something close to it, is allowed to fortify its position as a monopoly while regulated, there will simply be nothing capable of competing with it when deregulated. I'm not really a proponent for either, regulation might be the most likely to work, but the way its been done in the past certainly has proven that.
""The last mile" specifically means running and maintaining infrastructure directly to each of your customers homes. So no, cell phones do not have the last mile problem."
I'd argue that the inability of cell phone carriers to provide access to my home and shoddy access at my workplace, is proof that there is most definitely a last mile problem.
When referring to Ma Bell I'm referring to the baby bells also, sorry if I wasn't clear.
"Cable TV is fundamentally different from cell phones because cell phones don't have the "last mile problem.""
Some may be affected less, but there is no provider without the "last mile" problem. Cell phones can reach capacity in specific regions just as well as cable/dsl. I can recall several instances in which this has happened. It will become a much bigger problem if it ever becomes a viable option for primary internet access. I don't see how this has anything to do with the original topic.
What I was arguing is that cell phones are a much freer market and as such, I feel at least, users have benefitted in greater amount and in less time then they ever had with ma/baby bells. DSL deregulation isn't a good example of why deregulation doesn't work your talking about a service that had been regulated for decades. Of course its not going to work. A regulated industry is just not going to be in the kind of condition to support a free market when deregulated.
5-nines uptime with a cell phone? Somehow I doubt that. I can't even get reliable cell phone access at my house, near a major city, because its in a shallow ravine.. the tennessee mountains are much less forgiving. You can't offer an exception as being the norm. There are far more people who have access to DSL/Cable, in my experience, then they do reliable 2.5/3/4G.
Third party regulation? You need only look at Ma Bell to see how that turned out. Most local, privately owned ISPs only avenue to offering affordable "broadband" was through the phone company's DSL. For a while this was regulated, poorly, and allowed them to stay afloat, but only just. Most of these local ISPs slowly faded away, not because they didn't have the user base, but because what they had to pay the telephone companies left little margin for profit. At one point I remember BellSouth in particular even telling us we could no longer offer the cheap, low-speed offering, even though they themselves still offered it -- meaning we had no way to compete for the lowest dollar. Dropping DSL regulation was the final death toll, the ones that were large enough to negotiate a deal survived, but that was it. Personally I feel the telephone line is a perfect example of why government regulation doesn't work.
There are plenty of companies who can compete with Comcast. Comcast is hardly the only large cable company out there. I don't see how it would necessarily be any different then the cell phone market. They would have to slowly expand their network, but competition would be possible.
If something only works under ideal conditions then it is safe to say that it is an ideal, one which couldn't work in "the real world." In effect your kind of proving yourself wrong here. You can't assume people will be willing to sacrifice themselves for their ideals. Throughout history those types of people are the exception, not the norm. Hell, they're some people who would have a real hard time simply existing if they couldn't buy their supposedly "non-organic" food from underpaid and under-appreciated Wal-Mart employees. I'm sure you can argue that the market prices would adjust if we'd all just cooperate, but once again your shooting for an ideal that has never and will never exist.
All sources I have ever seen disagree, most of which can be found with a Google search, where exactly are you claims coming from? Granted I do believe it is mostly POSIX compliant these days, but it's not fully compliant last I heard.
Even if I were wrong about POSIX compliancy it would hardly change my argument, Solaris has more in common with most, if not all, UNIX and UNIX-like systems then Linux. Even were it not for the obvious pedigree -- it's easily apparent to anyone with access to those OS's.
As to your first point, you fail to explain how this would change the situation in any way. It wouldn't. The CDDL does not provide provisions against forking.
Your second point is moot. The whole deal with "giving back" is when a group of people take a project, that isn't theirs, and turn it into a product that they are going to sell/reuse. This is not what is happening here. Solaris is the property of Oracle, there is no one for them to give back to but themselves. All but dropping support for OpenSolaris can hardly be considered a grab and run, and in the long run Solaris really didn't benefit much at all from OpenSolaris in actual code contributions. I have never heard of a submitter earning sole ownership of relatively small contributions in a large project, GPL or not, but perhaps I'm wrong there.
Hell, I'd even argue that the GPL often gets in the way of companies when they do attempt to give back. Look at ZFS and dtrace for two prime examples.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell that to all the developers releasing 'Mac' versions of their games when in reality it's simply the Windows version in a pretty Cider (Wine) package. I'm not disputing you by a long shot, I find the practice extremely obnoxious, but many developers aren't above doing it... EA is probably the most rampant that I've noticed.
Sorry, Wine is an emulator. The authors created the acronym in order to separate themselves from "full" machine virtualization. Technically speaking, Wine does more than provide a reimplementation of the Windows API, it emulates certain aspects of the windows kernel and translates signals and exceptions into the X equivalent and vice-versa. Don't believe all the marketing you hear.
It gets even funnier when you remember their old '1984'-based campaign, they've come full circle.
Actually survey's tend to be biased in the other direction. In other words, the trend tends to be that a greater percentage of people would steal but some of them don't want to admit it. I think that theft here is probably including some things that many people wouldn't conventionally think of.
A clause that broad would never hold up in court. It would have to be a company in direct competition with IBM over the same clientele. While I realize IBM has their fingers in a lot of different cookie jars, all CNC's must have reasonable limitations. A CNC can't keep someone with a trade skill from practicing it except for in specific circumstances where it could be proven that it would directly hurt their business. Plus, that's face it, if you have a choice between being unable to support your family and possibly getting caught for breaking a non-compete what would you do? Better yet, what are they going to do? Sue you when your just steps away from bankruptcy? It would be preferable to get a job at a company not in competition, but if you are to the point where you are getting desperate -- worst thing that would happen is that you wouldn't be hired for the job because that company found out about your non-compete.
It is getting harder, part of the reason why more-and-more families are two income families. The large variation in COL in some areas makes it hard to relate, I'm just stating that a neophyte is setting themselves up for disappointment if they are demanding Doctorate-level pay on a Bachelor degree or less. 65k is quite literally what many desirable Doctorate-level jobs around here start at -- veterinarians, lawyers, pharmicists, you name it. Your area may be completely different, in which case you should probably raise the numbers to a level that makes sense.
There are very few degrees beyond computer science and engineering, unless your simply lucky, which can expect such high wages. The honeymoon is over, we have more competent people in this sector every year, it's natural for us to want wages to go up, but as our skills become more common place we have less to fall back on. It's funny really, it sounds like in your instance you went on to get another degree, but there is no shortage of people on here actually complaining about struggling to find 65k with a bachelor degree and no experience -- a number which, at least where I'm from, people graduating with degrees in veterinary medicine and law are also aiming for. Perhaps its time we, as a group, get over ourselves.
It can be pretty easily done and at very little cost. An email server doesn't require much in the way of hardware, and it's incredibly easy these days to build (or buy) yourself a computer that uses less wattage than a lightbulb. If you get yourself an mx backup server (which can be had for about $10/yr) most standard home broadband connections would be plenty stable.
There are a lot of Windows games out there that support both OpenGL and DirectX. Most of the successful Cider ports are games that support both DirectX and OpenGL on Windows.
I do believe Mac OS 8/9 supported OpenGL. Furthermore, Quickdraw is still part of OSX. Yes, its deprecated, but its still there. Some software and well used graphics libraries, such as the current stable version of SDL, still use it.
Unfortunately its gotten popular enough that I've become skeptical whenever I hear of a new "mac port" these days. I do feel its not too far off to say that the majority of big budget games in the past 2-3 years have used Cider. I have no facts to back up this claim of course, its just what I've experienced. Warhammer Online, EVE Online, Dragon Age, Spore, Call of Duty, Command and Conquer, and City of Heroes, would be a few. Blizzard seems to be one of the last companies that still develops natively for Mac, but this is its first new release in what, seven years? EA certainly does not release natively. I heard Bioshock was actually native, but it came out years too late. Unfortunately the current state of Mac gaming seems to be that if you want it in a reasonable time frame, it'll be using Cider.
From what I saw of the quoted law in the article, allowing unencrypted data over a medium would result in the hospital being prosecuted as well as the employee. It wouldn't really matter if the employee signed an agreement, its the hospital allowing the security breech by making it available. Incidentally, it seems HTTPS is perfectly acceptable, so I don't really understand what the problem is with employees accessing webmail over HTTPS. I guess you could argue that unencrypted data could possibly be stored in cache and what-not.
I've never worked in a company/organization where management has a complete disconnect between policy/reality and what they want. Maybe that makes me lucky, but in my experience if an organization goes this far to implement policy the manager is quite aware of it and accompanying consequences. Thus if a manager requires an employee to access email and IT is unable to provide said employee with access, it's the IT dept that will be seen as incompetent, not the employee.
No big surprise there, when has "geekdom" ever had a united front?
They'd just deny you access, it's not like they'd suddenly change policy because of a user's specifications.
That would be a legal snafu, they couldn't require you to access email outside while at the same time refusing to allow you access. In this case they would either have to provide the employee with a computer, allow mail forwarding, or drop the issue altogether.
They certainly can't require you to install anything on your computer, that much is for sure. In the same vein, they don't have to allow you access. It's hard to suggest anything knowing as little as I/we do. You said you have access to webmail. Since most people don't have a static IP, how exactly are they planning on limiting user's access (compliant or otherwise) from unprivileged outside locations? For instance, from what your describing, if you complied, you could access your email from home on your computer. What happens if you access it from a different computer, how exactly are they being positive that your accessing your email from the computer that your supposed to be? I'm guessing some sort of Radius authentication could be worked out in which certain software credentials would be required.. but that would be a real pain..
I'd agree with that, but it seems like we're being forced to choose between two unacceptable situations. Regulation seems to be the lesser evil in some cases, but not all.
"So you're saying that poorly conceived and poorly executed deregulation is a problem with regulation?"
No, I'm saying poorly conceived or poorly executed regulation makes it impossible to have a successful deregulation, the infrastructure just won't be there. If a monopoly, or something close to it, is allowed to fortify its position as a monopoly while regulated, there will simply be nothing capable of competing with it when deregulated. I'm not really a proponent for either, regulation might be the most likely to work, but the way its been done in the past certainly has proven that.
""The last mile" specifically means running and maintaining infrastructure directly to each of your customers homes. So no, cell phones do not have the last mile problem."
I'd argue that the inability of cell phone carriers to provide access to my home and shoddy access at my workplace, is proof that there is most definitely a last mile problem.
When referring to Ma Bell I'm referring to the baby bells also, sorry if I wasn't clear.
"Cable TV is fundamentally different from cell phones because cell phones don't have the "last mile problem.""
Some may be affected less, but there is no provider without the "last mile" problem. Cell phones can reach capacity in specific regions just as well as cable/dsl. I can recall several instances in which this has happened. It will become a much bigger problem if it ever becomes a viable option for primary internet access. I don't see how this has anything to do with the original topic.
What I was arguing is that cell phones are a much freer market and as such, I feel at least, users have benefitted in greater amount and in less time then they ever had with ma/baby bells. DSL deregulation isn't a good example of why deregulation doesn't work your talking about a service that had been regulated for decades. Of course its not going to work. A regulated industry is just not going to be in the kind of condition to support a free market when deregulated.
5-nines uptime with a cell phone? Somehow I doubt that. I can't even get reliable cell phone access at my house, near a major city, because its in a shallow ravine.. the tennessee mountains are much less forgiving. You can't offer an exception as being the norm. There are far more people who have access to DSL/Cable, in my experience, then they do reliable 2.5/3/4G.
Third party regulation? You need only look at Ma Bell to see how that turned out. Most local, privately owned ISPs only avenue to offering affordable "broadband" was through the phone company's DSL. For a while this was regulated, poorly, and allowed them to stay afloat, but only just. Most of these local ISPs slowly faded away, not because they didn't have the user base, but because what they had to pay the telephone companies left little margin for profit. At one point I remember BellSouth in particular even telling us we could no longer offer the cheap, low-speed offering, even though they themselves still offered it -- meaning we had no way to compete for the lowest dollar. Dropping DSL regulation was the final death toll, the ones that were large enough to negotiate a deal survived, but that was it. Personally I feel the telephone line is a perfect example of why government regulation doesn't work.
There are plenty of companies who can compete with Comcast. Comcast is hardly the only large cable company out there. I don't see how it would necessarily be any different then the cell phone market. They would have to slowly expand their network, but competition would be possible.
If something only works under ideal conditions then it is safe to say that it is an ideal, one which couldn't work in "the real world." In effect your kind of proving yourself wrong here. You can't assume people will be willing to sacrifice themselves for their ideals. Throughout history those types of people are the exception, not the norm. Hell, they're some people who would have a real hard time simply existing if they couldn't buy their supposedly "non-organic" food from underpaid and under-appreciated Wal-Mart employees. I'm sure you can argue that the market prices would adjust if we'd all just cooperate, but once again your shooting for an ideal that has never and will never exist.
All sources I have ever seen disagree, most of which can be found with a Google search, where exactly are you claims coming from? Granted I do believe it is mostly POSIX compliant these days, but it's not fully compliant last I heard.
Even if I were wrong about POSIX compliancy it would hardly change my argument, Solaris has more in common with most, if not all, UNIX and UNIX-like systems then Linux. Even were it not for the obvious pedigree -- it's easily apparent to anyone with access to those OS's.
I missed something, why would you not be proud of being a sys-admin?
As to your first point, you fail to explain how this would change the situation in any way. It wouldn't. The CDDL does not provide provisions against forking.
Your second point is moot. The whole deal with "giving back" is when a group of people take a project, that isn't theirs, and turn it into a product that they are going to sell/reuse. This is not what is happening here. Solaris is the property of Oracle, there is no one for them to give back to but themselves. All but dropping support for OpenSolaris can hardly be considered a grab and run, and in the long run Solaris really didn't benefit much at all from OpenSolaris in actual code contributions. I have never heard of a submitter earning sole ownership of relatively small contributions in a large project, GPL or not, but perhaps I'm wrong there.
Hell, I'd even argue that the GPL often gets in the way of companies when they do attempt to give back. Look at ZFS and dtrace for two prime examples.