I don't see the issue. That is something for ISPs to work out between each other. If they can't come up with a two way peering agreement, it's probably because one side doesn't really care if the other side is there or not.
But what about a learner's license? Do they not have such a thing? You know.. a license with terms and conditions requiring, among other things that you must have a licensed driver over a certain age in the car with you, and must drive during daylight hours, and perhaps not over certain speeds or on certain roads? That is how most places do it.
Distribution is not defined. That is one of the problems with the GPL.
I mean, say I am working on a piece of code, based on GPL stuff. Say it's for internal use only within my office. I think we all agree that using it on my company's computers only is not distributing it. Now let's say I want to send a copy to Joe because I value Joe's input into UI design, so I send a binary to my pal Joe. AM I now obligated to give Joe source? I don't think so. I am not distributing my new work. I am merely SHOWING it to joe so he can give me feedback. The GPL should not prevent this.
Now.. what Lindows is doing is different.. the bastards are charging people to see a beta, which is slimy to begin with...
So.. anyone know what *really* constitutes distribution?
Instead of taking a section of spectrum, and, say, dividing it into a hundred equal slices frequency-wise and assigning a slice to each of a hundred users, you take that same spectrum and allow thos ehundred people and divide the spectrum up time-wise,,or.. that other way (how does one describe DSSS?). The point is.. it's not a magic bullet. There is still limited spectrum, and hence, limited bandwidth.
Whether it's common spread spectrum (DSSS, FHSS) or the new UWB thing everyone talks about every six months... it's still limited.
The benefit of spread spectrum over other methods is simply that radios can all be equal, and the 'sharing' can be accomplished algorithmically, rather than by physical frequency boundaries... which should make things more flexbile.
You know, EULA or not... what Kazaa did is slimy. VERY slimy. They decieved people into installing something and giving up something they know people will not realize they are giving up. It is deception, whether it fits the legal definition or not.
I'm realistic... most people do not know or care of the difference, but they should.
So my question is...
What can we realistically do in order to force a bit more honesty in software providers?
No... Tesla would have done this at tens of thousands of cycles/second.
The point was about AC as a technology in general.. not the standard 220v/60Hz we are used to now.
Edison was, in short, scared shitless that AC was so superior for power transmission.
He also tried to have laws passed limiting the voltage that transmission lines could legally carry, and make it the same for ac and dc. The obvious benefit of this is that high-voltage DC is bloody dangerous, and high voltage AC is relatively safe.
Bose seems to provide absolutely no standard audio information on their website about these headphones. They go on and on about noise cancelling abilities, and how great all their adapters are, but I can't find anywhere where they show a response curve, impedence, THD, etc.
What is the sound quality of those bose headphones though? I mean, compared to, say, some standard GOOD headphones.. like... Grado 60's, or Sennheiser HD330 or HD570's. (All around $60-$150)
I mean with the noise cancelling turned on. What is the response? I ask only because in my experience a great many of the headphones out there are utter crap when it comes to decent sound reproduction. Most Sony headphones are crap until you get into their high end ones, you get 5x the quality from sennheiser or grado for the price. Same with most other brands. I have no experience with Bose, other than their speakers, which, although amazing at first listen, actually butcher the crap out of your audio. It sounds good, but it's not an accurate reproduction.
Really, we just need to not have MS bullying vendors into not messing with windows. If a vendor licenses windows for it's product (computers), it should be able to modify it in whichever way they want in order to produce their product.
I've been what happens "after" the wheel. As a device, it's clearly on a roll, and is headin gfor even greater things, but it's still a design that predates written history.
Uh.... so what? You *STILL* get your 30 minute free with the phone or whatnot, if you want to buy more, you buy more time..
The point he is making is why go through $30 disposable phones when for a price in the same ballpark, you can get a fully featured phone?
And you *can* get them unlocked you know.
Also.. don't forget competition. Yes, companies will lock down prices to get more customers. Well guess whta? prices go up, a competitor is doing the same thing, and you switch. Switching is a pain? Try getting a new disposable phone every 30 minutes.
The point is, just because you have an infinity does not mean all possibilities are covered.
WEhther you want ot call it an infinite universe, or an infinite number of finite universes, it still does not mean that every possibly thing exists.
Take the set {1,2,3,4,...} . WE can say that every whole number exists in this set. However, an infinite set of the same size {1, 3, 5, 7, 9,...} does NOT contain every whole number. Both are infinite, and both of the same size.
Also.. are there hundredsof thousands of news servers nowadays? I think we are dealing with smaller numbers of larger servers now.. with news services like newsfeeds.com and such becoming increasingly popular hubs for usenet.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see the issue. That is something for ISPs to work out between each other. If they can't come up with a two way peering agreement, it's probably because one side doesn't really care if the other side is there or not.
But what about a learner's license? Do they not have such a thing? You know.. a license with terms and conditions requiring, among other things that you must have a licensed driver over a certain age in the car with you, and must drive during daylight hours, and perhaps not over certain speeds or on certain roads? That is how most places do it.
What about something like, say, driving school?
Can you show how mis-identified drivers licenses are somhow of such important to impose statewide image recognition and other biometrics?
I doubt it.
A driver's license is a *license to drive*. Period. Anything else is auxilliary.
If they want to issue state ID that is required for certain transactions with the state, then that is another issue.
Distribution is not defined. That is one of the problems with the GPL.
I mean, say I am working on a piece of code, based on GPL stuff. Say it's for internal use only within my office. I think we all agree that using it on my company's computers only is not distributing it. Now let's say I want to send a copy to Joe because I value Joe's input into UI design, so I send a binary to my pal Joe. AM I now obligated to give Joe source? I don't think so. I am not distributing my new work. I am merely SHOWING it to joe so he can give me feedback. The GPL should not prevent this.
Now.. what Lindows is doing is different.. the bastards are charging people to see a beta, which is slimy to begin with...
So.. anyone know what *really* constitutes distribution?
Spread Spectrum is no magic bullet.
,or.. that other way (how does one describe DSSS?).
Instead of taking a section of spectrum, and, say, dividing it into a hundred equal slices frequency-wise and assigning a slice to each of a hundred users, you take that same spectrum and allow thos ehundred people and divide the spectrum up time-wise,
The point is.. it's not a magic bullet. There is still limited spectrum, and hence, limited bandwidth.
Whether it's common spread spectrum (DSSS, FHSS) or the new UWB thing everyone talks about every six months... it's still limited.
The benefit of spread spectrum over other methods is simply that radios can all be equal, and the 'sharing' can be accomplished algorithmically, rather than by physical frequency boundaries... which should make things more flexbile.
You know, EULA or not... what Kazaa did is slimy. VERY slimy. They decieved people into installing something and giving up something they know people will not realize they are giving up. It is deception, whether it fits the legal definition or not.
I'm realistic... most people do not know or care of the difference, but they should.
So my question is...
What can we realistically do in order to force a bit more honesty in software providers?
No... Tesla would have done this at tens of thousands of cycles/second.
The point was about AC as a technology in general.. not the standard 220v/60Hz we are used to now.
Edison was, in short, scared shitless that AC was so superior for power transmission.
He also tried to have laws passed limiting the voltage that transmission lines could legally carry, and make it the same for ac and dc.
The obvious benefit of this is that high-voltage DC is bloody dangerous, and high voltage AC is relatively safe.
Two Words. Nikola Tesla.
Shortly after WW2, several major electronics companies filed patents on "Digital Logic Gates".
The patents were denied, the USPTO cited several of Tesla's patents for the same system implemented in his devices.
The end result? Digital logic stayed public domain.
The only 'ethical' problem I have with it is how said cloned human is treated once conception occurs.
As long as the person is treated normally, as any other child would be, I have no problem with it.
The *REAL* danger is when we start viewing clones as sub-human.
Yes, it is an experiment. And when this child is born, and grows up, he must be free to not participate.
It's similar to product tying.
Where you can only buy product A if you buy product B.
And, although legally it's probably not the same thing... product tying is illegal in many places.
Bose seems to provide absolutely no standard audio information on their website about these headphones. They go on and on about noise cancelling abilities, and how great all their adapters are, but I can't find anywhere where they show a response curve, impedence, THD, etc.
Support should rest on the shoulders of the person selling the computer with windows pre-installed.
What is the sound quality of those bose headphones though? I mean, compared to, say, some standard GOOD headphones.. like...
Grado 60's, or Sennheiser HD330 or HD570's.
(All around $60-$150)
I mean with the noise cancelling turned on. What is the response? I ask only because in my experience a great many of the headphones out there are utter crap when it comes to decent sound reproduction. Most Sony headphones are crap until you get into their high end ones, you get 5x the quality from sennheiser or grado for the price. Same with most other brands.
I have no experience with Bose, other than their speakers, which, although amazing at first listen, actually butcher the crap out of your audio. It sounds good, but it's not an accurate reproduction.
Such clauses are not enforcable. They are not rational.
Nobody in a *real* contract negotiation would *ever* agree to such a term.
The scary thing is, any other day I would believe you would do this.
In fact, I'm sure you will at some point.
Really, we just need to not have MS bullying vendors into not messing with windows. If a vendor licenses windows for it's product (computers), it should be able to modify it in whichever way they want in order to produce their product.
THAT is where MS power comes from.
I've been what happens "after" the wheel. As a device, it's clearly on a roll, and is headin gfor even greater things, but it's still a design that predates written history.
Uh.... so what? You *STILL* get your 30 minute free with the phone or whatnot, if you want to buy more, you buy more time..
The point he is making is why go through $30 disposable phones when for a price in the same ballpark, you can get a fully featured phone?
And you *can* get them unlocked you know.
Also.. don't forget competition. Yes, companies will lock down prices to get more customers. Well guess whta? prices go up, a competitor is doing the same thing, and you switch. Switching is a pain? Try getting a new disposable phone every 30 minutes.
It's HAMMIES doing this. They are allowed. THey know the rules and regulations, and how to stay within them.
The point is, just because you have an infinity does not mean all possibilities are covered.
...} does NOT contain every whole number. Both are infinite, and both of the same size.
WEhther you want ot call it an infinite universe, or an infinite number of finite universes, it still does not mean that every possibly thing exists.
Take the set {1,2,3,4,...} . WE can say that every whole number exists in this set.
However, an infinite set of the same size
{1, 3, 5, 7, 9,
And none of those things are the Kernel.
I'm talking about NT, the kernel, not NT, the product.
IF it's a ground-up rewrite, what is it a ground-up rewrite of? By your criteria, every OS is a rewrite.
I am so sick of hearing that mantra over and over again.
Obscurity is one facet to security.
Obscurity on it's own is NOT security.
Given their method is proprietary and secret, you have no way of judging whether it is secure or not.
Nice to see how the other open-source developers in the community stood behind him.
Or is the 'community' a myth.
They should have all said "You lock him out, we all quit"
but it's still dishonest.
They are OBVIOUSLY banking on deception to get them more money. Otherwise, why be so obscure?
It's in bad faith. It's deceptive. They should
be punished.
Also.. are there hundredsof thousands of news servers nowadays? I think we are dealing with smaller numbers of larger servers now.. with news services like newsfeeds.com and such becoming increasingly popular hubs for usenet.