It's not a degree because it is an absolute measurement relative to reality.
We talk of degrees centigrade because the scale is not really based on zero of anything. The placement of zero is arbitrary. yes, it has a well defined place in physics.. but it's still not based on zero of anything. It is a relative measure. So we say something is 20 degrees on the centigrade scale, or fahrenheit, or whatever... meaning it's 20 units away from whatever we chose for the base.
The kelvin scale, being based on absolute 0, is a true measurement of temperature, so we masure in terms of units of temperature.
A chamber full of some special gas is used... and it takes the energy of 2 beams of invisible laser to cause an individual atom of the gas to emit a photon.... so they can use this to trace images in 3 dimensions.
For a truly volumetric display, we would expect it to be vector-like anyway, no? It wouldn't make sense to rasterize a 3d space.
First.. they said they were not ready to approach trusted computing until people were ready to pay for it.
Well, does that not make sense? there is no business sense in spending the money to develop something if people are not willing to pay for it.
Trusted computing is not about security.. it's about accountability. It's about being able to have a proper audit trail for who did what when, no matter what. Your data can still be stolen, you just know who did it.
Microsoft is not talking about charging for security patches or updates. They are talking about complete trusted systems, something they don't have yet (though NT goes further in this regard than linux does, by quite a bit. Notice how if a user changes the permissions on a file so adminstrator can't read it, then Administrator can't read it until he a) takes ownership of it and b) changes the permissions. Admin still has the power to read anything, but not without leaving a mark that they did it.)
They are talking about having secure offerings for trusted computing.
Really? Can you show any other OS vendor out there who guarantees security?
For that matter, if you had developed an OS and wanted to sell it, would you take responsibility for system security? How would you do so? What measures would you take to ensure your clients computer was secure?
The units on the Kelvin scale are officially known as "kelvins". Google sez:
kelvin (K): A unit of thermodynamic temperature, taken as one of the base units of the International System of Units (SI). The kelvin is defined by setting the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water at 273.16 K. Note 1: The kelvin was formerly called "degree Kelvin." The term "degree Kelvin" is now obsolete. No degree symbol is written with K, the symbol for kelvin(s). Note 2: In measuring temperature intervals, the degree Celsius is equal to the kelvin. The Celsius temperature scale is defined by setting 0 C equal to 273.16 K.
Note how there is no degree symbol when writing a tempetature in Kelvins.
we can see The kelvin (K) temperature scale is an extension of the degree Celsius scale down to absolute zero, a hypothetical temperature characterized by a complete absence of heat energy. Temperatures on this scale are called kelvins, NOT degrees kelvin, kelvin is not capitalized, and the symbol (capital K) stands alone with no degree symbol.
I think maybe you are just trolling.. but you are dead wrong on both these points.
I asked my lawyer. He pointed out that the copyright on the GPL has absolutely nothing to do with the parties involved in the contract. Unless the FSF holds the copyright on the work being put under license, they have no say in the matter.
There is no breach of contact if I refuse to give you source code in this situation. *I* am not bound by the GPL. let me spell it out for you.
If I give you the work, including the GPL.. you are free to NOT accept the terms of the GPL. If you choose not to, then standard copyright appplies. You can use the work, but you can't distribute it, can't distribute derivitave works, etcetera. If you DO choose to do soemthing you would normally be barred from doing under copyright law, like making derivitave works and selling them on ebay, then the only way you can do that legally is to accept the terms of the GPL.
I, however, hold the copyright. I am not bound by anything. The GPL does not require me to give up anything; you will notice the text of the GPL very clearly states that the RECEIVER (you) cannot re-distribute the work without following the terms of the GPL. It says nothing about what *I* (the one who licensed it to you) have to do. All It says is that I (the copyright holder) grant you (some guy) certain previleges under certain conditions.
If I was re-licensing 3rd party GPL work, then YES, I would have to follow the GPL, because the only reason I would be allowed to distribute in the first place is because of the GPL. If I am the original author, though, there is no such agreement in place.
As for what is more free.. where did that come from? Do you think I'm arguing about which one is better of more free? I'm not, I'm simply correcting your grossly inaccurate analysis of what the GPL means.
As I said, one can glean some working tags out of some of the upgrade FAQs.. it's enough to work with.. but nowhere is there a simple description of their tagging.
The fact that the text of the GPL is copyright the FSF does not in any way equate to the FSF being able to sue anyone who violates the GPL. If you think it does, please cite facts. When people talk of the FSF helping with enforcing the GPL, it is usually because the FSF *wants* to help out, and is invited to by the community; not because they have a copyright claim themselves. To put it differnetly, if I author an original work, license it under the GPL, and you break that license, *I* am the only person who can sue you. If I choose not to, the FSF can do NOTHING about it, to you or me.
Second: if I am the original author of the work, and I license it to YOU under the terms of the GPL, *I* am in NO WAY bound by the GPL. YOU are. I am the copyright holder. I can release it under as many licenses as I want, or none, or sell it to the Evil Empire, or whatever I want. I cannot revoke the license I gave you, of course, but I am in no way bound by the GPL.
The GPL gets is strength from copyright. standard copyright applies. The GPL grants you other rights to a software above what standard copyright would. (standard copyright would allow you to use the binaries I gave you, and nothing else. Fair use modification maybe, but certainly not distribution, of the original or derivitives)
Finally, the original poster is correct that the GPL suggests a default. If the only way to get redhat CDs was to buy them from redhat, then people would buy a decent number from redhat.. but because of the GPL, people can ALSO choose to get them from a buddy. Over time, it just becomes commonly available. So unless your target audience is in dire need of other services oyu have, or is incapable of getting a copy from the community, your GPL derived works don't have as much commercial value as something you can license however you want.
IT's not the same thing, and not the same end result.
Under some conditions, it is an acceptable results; soft-updates are a neat concept.
The thing is.. you have no choice in OpenBSD/FreeBSD. That's partly why linux is more appealing to many. If I want my system to use some new freaky experimental filesystem as the root fs, I can do that.
It won't matter how much current is available. if it won't arc at 12v at distance X, it won't arc at 12v at distance X even if the thing can sustain 200 amps or something rediculous like that.
All the features GSM has regarding the handsets could be added to any other system, and they have nothing to do with the RF technology end of things.
Yes, the personality modules are fantastic, and I wish every phone had them. Definately.
Don't know about the US, but in Canada, you can get prepaid from many vendors... though most still want you to 'sign up' at some time.. ie: give a name and address. In Europe, you can get a new phone number in 5 minute at the grocery store, no names, nothing.
There is no reason they cannot continue to use 3.0 if it suits their needs. It's not like it's going to roll up and die in December.
And, ignoring the 'technically superior' issue, because that's a whole different argument, what issue is it that lets you not be able to run something?
Thank you. That's my point exactly. You DO have the right, under US Law, to take them to court. The US just has no jurisdiction to force them to BE THERE, as they are on foreign soil.
Should the guy who broke into your computer from country X, where it may be legal, suddenly end up in the US, you could have him charged for the crime.
So in this case.. the US had every right to charge them with this crime, and the fact that they caught them IN the us, means they have jurisdtction over their asses now.
THe fact that they did hte hacking in russia does not mean they did not break any US laws.
If we took the time to mark things up properly, there is absolutely no reason that all the information and services out there should not be available to the visually impaired.
Somehow I think the US citizens whos computer you broke into would have no problem suing you over it, regardless of where you were at the time.
Scenario: You are standing across the border. You get a high powered rifle and shoot someone in the US. Then you head to the US.. do you honestly think they cannot charge you with murder?
"This is why 2.4Ghz wireless has become popular. 2.4Ghz was chosen for wireless networking because the frequency is the same as the resonance of trees and bricks, which means signals on that carrier wave can penetrate those objects leading to greater coverage."
Resonant materials stop the signal in it's tracks.
2.4 GHZ is almost useless at penetrating brick and trees. It requires true line of sight. 900Mhz is far better at penetrating these things than 2.4Ghz is.
Dense wood full of water (trees) or brick / concrete walls are the enemy of 2.4Ghz.
2.4Ghz was chosen because the band was there, and the higher frequency allowed greater data transmission than 900Mhz. For penetration of our everyday living space, 2.4Ghz is relatively shitty.
Slashdot Mirror
Or... it was just a clarification.
It's not a degree because it is an absolute measurement relative to reality.
We talk of degrees centigrade because the scale is not really based on zero of anything. The placement of zero is arbitrary. yes, it has a well defined place in physics.. but it's still not based on zero of anything. It is a relative measure. So we say something is 20 degrees on the centigrade scale, or fahrenheit, or whatever... meaning it's 20 units away from whatever we chose for the base.
The kelvin scale, being based on absolute 0, is a true measurement of temperature, so we masure in terms of units of temperature.
Clarify, please.
And I'm not talking about the NSA's "trusted linux". I'm talking about the linux distributions everyone uses daily.
Being done.. I don't have the url handy.
Some research team somewhre is working on it.
A chamber full of some special gas is used... and it takes the energy of 2 beams of invisible laser to cause an individual atom of the gas to emit a photon.... so they can use this to trace images in 3 dimensions.
For a truly volumetric display, we would expect it to be vector-like anyway, no? It wouldn't make sense to rasterize a 3d space.
First.. they said they were not ready to approach trusted computing until people were ready to pay for it.
Well, does that not make sense? there is no business sense in spending the money to develop something if people are not willing to pay for it.
Trusted computing is not about security.. it's about accountability. It's about being able to have a proper audit trail for who did what when, no matter what. Your data can still be stolen, you just know who did it.
Microsoft is not talking about charging for security patches or updates. They are talking about complete trusted systems, something they don't have yet (though NT goes further in this regard than linux does, by quite a bit. Notice how if a user changes the permissions on a file so adminstrator can't read it, then Administrator can't read it until he a) takes ownership of it and b) changes the permissions. Admin still has the power to read anything, but not without leaving a mark that they did it.)
They are talking about having secure offerings for trusted computing.
Really?
Can you show any other OS vendor out there who guarantees security?
For that matter, if you had developed an OS and wanted to sell it, would you take responsibility for system security? How would you do so? What measures would you take to ensure your clients computer was secure?
The units on the Kelvin scale are officially known as "kelvins".
Google sez:
kelvin (K): A unit of thermodynamic temperature, taken as one of the base units of the International System of Units (SI). The kelvin is defined by setting the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water at 273.16 K. Note 1: The kelvin was formerly called "degree Kelvin." The term "degree Kelvin" is now obsolete. No degree symbol is written with K, the symbol for kelvin(s). Note 2: In measuring temperature intervals, the degree Celsius is equal to the kelvin. The Celsius temperature scale is defined by setting 0 C equal to 273.16 K.
Note how there is no degree symbol when writing a tempetature in Kelvins.
From:
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/temps.htm
we can see
The kelvin (K) temperature scale is an extension of the degree Celsius scale down to absolute zero, a hypothetical temperature characterized by a complete absence of heat energy. Temperatures on this scale are called kelvins, NOT degrees kelvin, kelvin is not capitalized, and the symbol (capital K) stands alone with no degree symbol.
Yeah, you are right. I knew that, too.
I was thinking of isopropanol.
I think maybe you are just trolling.. but you are dead wrong on both these points.
I asked my lawyer. He pointed out that the copyright on the GPL has absolutely nothing to do with the parties involved in the contract. Unless the FSF holds the copyright on the work being put under license, they have no say in the matter.
There is no breach of contact if I refuse to give you source code in this situation. *I* am not bound by the GPL.
let me spell it out for you.
If I give you the work, including the GPL.. you are free to NOT accept the terms of the GPL. If you choose not to, then standard copyright appplies. You can use the work, but you can't distribute it, can't distribute derivitave works, etcetera. If you DO choose to do soemthing you would normally be barred from doing under copyright law, like making derivitave works and selling them on ebay, then the only way you can do that legally is to accept the terms of the GPL.
I, however, hold the copyright. I am not bound by anything. The GPL does not require me to give up anything; you will notice the text of the GPL very clearly states that the RECEIVER (you) cannot re-distribute the work without following the terms of the GPL. It says nothing about what *I* (the one who licensed it to you) have to do.
All It says is that I (the copyright holder) grant you (some guy) certain previleges under certain conditions.
If I was re-licensing 3rd party GPL work, then YES, I would have to follow the GPL, because the only reason I would be allowed to distribute in the first place is because of the GPL. If I am the original author, though, there is no such agreement in place.
As for what is more free.. where did that come from? Do you think I'm arguing about which one is better of more free? I'm not, I'm simply correcting your grossly inaccurate analysis of what the GPL means.
Okay. Which documentation, speficially?
As I said, one can glean some working tags out of some of the upgrade FAQs.. it's enough to work with.. but nowhere is there a simple description of their tagging.
Okay... so fetching source from the openbsd cvs mirrors.
All the docs on the openbsd site are a bit dated, and you have to piece things together..
everyone talks of -stable and -current. Are these actual CVS tags?
Can I do a cvs get -rSTABLE and get the latest stable?
I know that, for instance, OPENBSD_3_1 is the 3.1-stable tree....
is there somewhere where the cvs tagging is properly documented?
The fact that the text of the GPL is copyright the FSF does not in any way equate to the FSF being able to sue anyone who violates the GPL. If you think it does, please cite facts. When people talk of the FSF helping with enforcing the GPL, it is usually because the FSF *wants* to help out, and is invited to by the community; not because they have a copyright claim themselves. To put it differnetly, if I author an original work, license it under the GPL, and you break that license, *I* am the only person who can sue you. If I choose not to, the FSF can do NOTHING about it, to you or me.
Second: if I am the original author of the work, and I license it to YOU under the terms of the GPL, *I* am in NO WAY bound by the GPL. YOU are.
I am the copyright holder. I can release it under as many licenses as I want, or none, or sell it to the Evil Empire, or whatever I want. I cannot revoke the license I gave you, of course, but I am in no way bound by the GPL.
The GPL gets is strength from copyright. standard copyright applies. The GPL grants you other rights to a software above what standard copyright would. (standard copyright would allow you to use the binaries I gave you, and nothing else. Fair use modification maybe, but certainly not distribution, of the original or derivitives)
Finally, the original poster is correct that the GPL suggests a default. If the only way to get redhat CDs was to buy them from redhat, then people would buy a decent number from redhat.. but because of the GPL, people can ALSO choose to get them from a buddy. Over time, it just becomes commonly available. So unless your target audience is in dire need of other services oyu have, or is incapable of getting a copy from the community, your GPL derived works don't have as much commercial value as something you can license however you want.
That's the standard mantra that is recited time and time again. We all know that's a potential consequence.
What I want to know is..
Can you cite some examples of superior products being created out of BSD code?
Solaris is the entire system, and is SunOS 5.X based.
SunOS 4.x wasn't called "Solaris".. just SunOS 4.x
Which of those services is vulnerable?
They run by default because they have been heavily audited and are known to be secure.
IT's not the same thing, and not the same end result.
Under some conditions, it is an acceptable results; soft-updates are a neat concept.
The thing is.. you have no choice in OpenBSD/FreeBSD. That's partly why linux is more appealing to many. If I want my system to use some new freaky experimental filesystem as the root fs, I can do that.
It won't matter how much current is available. if it won't arc at 12v at distance X, it won't arc at 12v at distance X even if the thing can sustain 200 amps or something rediculous like that.
I=E/R
Are you?
Ethanol is what is in your martini, and your smirnoff, and even in real vodka (snicker).
Methanol is what you find in rubbing alcohol, and is most definately a petroleum product.
All the features GSM has regarding the handsets could be added to any other system, and they have nothing to do with the RF technology end of things.
Yes, the personality modules are fantastic, and I wish every phone had them. Definately.
Don't know about the US, but in Canada, you can get prepaid from many vendors... though most still want you to 'sign up' at some time.. ie: give a name and address. In Europe, you can get a new phone number in 5 minute at the grocery store, no names, nothing.
There is no reason they cannot continue to use 3.0 if it suits their needs. It's not like it's going to roll up and die in December.
And, ignoring the 'technically superior' issue, because that's a whole different argument, what issue is it that lets you not be able to run something?
Thank you. That's my point exactly. You DO have the right, under US Law, to take them to court. The US just has no jurisdiction to force them to BE THERE, as they are on foreign soil.
Should the guy who broke into your computer from country X, where it may be legal, suddenly end up in the US, you could have him charged for the crime.
So in this case.. the US had every right to charge them with this crime, and the fact that they caught them IN the us, means they have jurisdtction over their asses now.
THe fact that they did hte hacking in russia does not mean they did not break any US laws.
If we took the time to mark things up properly, there is absolutely no reason that all the information and services out there should not be available to the visually impaired.
Some people like school for the learning aspect, as opposed to the "how much money will I make later" aspect.
Niche degrees like this may make you less marketable overall, but they can also uniquely qualify you for certain jobs above others.
As another poster said, what about biker gangs who want to build new high-tech marijuana operations?
Somehow I think the US citizens whos computer you broke into would have no problem suing you over it, regardless of where you were at the time.
Scenario: You are standing across the border. You get a high powered rifle and shoot someone in the US. Then you head to the US.. do you honestly think they cannot charge you with murder?
I took that hook, line, and sinker, eh?
I'm not fully awake yet. Argh.
"This is why 2.4Ghz wireless has become popular. 2.4Ghz was chosen for wireless networking because the frequency is the same as the resonance of trees and bricks, which means signals on that carrier wave can penetrate those objects leading to greater coverage."
Resonant materials stop the signal in it's tracks.
2.4 GHZ is almost useless at penetrating brick and trees. It requires true line of sight. 900Mhz is far better at penetrating these things than 2.4Ghz is.
Dense wood full of water (trees) or brick / concrete walls are the enemy of 2.4Ghz.
2.4Ghz was chosen because the band was there, and the higher frequency allowed greater data transmission than 900Mhz. For penetration of our everyday living space, 2.4Ghz is relatively shitty.