I wish I could quote the math, but I just don't know it that well. What I do know, from working quite a bit with basically this same thing, is this.
It's not accurate to say 'you can't use an amplifier' nor 'if you don't use an amplifier, whatever you do is legal.'. Both can keep you with the bounds of the ISM rules, or take you outside of it, depending on what you do.
The point is, the right high-gain directional antennae alone can take you outside the technically legal limits of 2.4Ghz ISM. And other situations, you can amplify the signal as long as you stay within the specified limits.
Anyone with some real knowledge of the math involved want to explain this better? (Or correct me?)
People who exercise options and just hang onto the stock are being incredibly stupid, or are severely misinformed. There is *NO REASON AT ALL* to do such a thing. Simply holding the options harbors no risk at all. There is absolutely no need to exercise until you want to sell.
You can exercise, and then have your broker shortsell on the exercise date to recover your costs. Or before, if you want (slight risk if the stock goes up before exercise date).If you short it and your exercise date is a day or two later, and the stock drops, all the better (you incurr a slight capital gain on top of the option benefit, but that's good)
Blaming the fall of silicon vally on this option benefit tax is rediculous; again, there is absolutely no reason to exercise the options until you are ready to sell. The options themselves harbor no risk, but if you exercise, you open yourself up to a dangerous tax liability.
Also... (this is how it works in Canada)... capital losses can only be used to offset capital gains... so the massive capital loss you get in your scenario doesn't help you at all unless you happen to have some large capital gains elsewhere.
I made the mistake of not selling all the stock I exercised, and it cost me dearly. It's silly that I have to pay tax on money I never really had... but I knew the risk beforehand. If you ask me, stock option benefit should be capital gains, not income... but unfortunately, it's not.
Two things.
1) You are using napster to acquire software by unlawful means.
2) By your own admission, you KNOW anyone can come and copy the music you have already downloaded. This is distribution, my friend. You are making the material available to people for download.
The Napster program was designed *To help people trade mp3*, and the Napster company was formed because doing so was thought (Rightly so) to be wildly popular.
I doubt they would ever sue an individual napster user, you are right. But the piont here is that, regardless of how you want to micro-analyze what individual users do, Napster is in business to help people illegally distribute music. Trying to deny that is SILLY.
Tell me this. Are you trying to say that, in the use of napster, no crimes have been comitted, no copyrights have been violated, and nobody has done anything the least bit illegal? If not, who HAS done something illegal?
If you said 'I didn't know napster was sharing stuff' you might ahve a case.
But you KNOW you are sharing them with people, you are specifically using napster to MAKE them available to other napster users. It's silly to argue that you 'aren't doing anything wrong'.
You having the mp3's is not illegal. You spreading them around without the permission of the copyright holder IS.
Napster is being accused of contributory infringement because their business, as I explained, is based on HELPING PEOPLE SHARE mp3, knowing that it will be wildly popular because people will use it to illegally pirate music.
Napster users *are* directly distributing the material. it's just like if they had a store selling pirated CD's of popular tunes, and it was free. People who took the time could come in , browse, and just grab what they want.
I've returned software, opened, before.
I even returned a copy of Jane's F-18 because I thought it sucked. It didn't at all work in the 'advanced' way I wanted it to, and Electronics Botique took it back, no complaints. Due to this nice practice, I happily bought something else from them after they credited my credit card with a refund.
As for the 'open box' policy, that holds true for situations like my Janes situation; I was a bit disappointed, but nobody lied to me. If I walk into any store, and say 'I need an accounting package that handles Euros' and the guy sells me a package, saying it handles euros, and it DOESN'T, then they *HAVE* to take it back. There is no way of saying 'you opened it'. It was sold under false pretenses.
I've had many salespeople try to tell me 'you can't return it if it's open'. These salesmen only understand the store policy. They only say this because most large stores of any kind of product tend to take returns for 'any reason at all' without hassle. Don't like the sweater you bought? Bring it back for a refund. THey are under no legal obligation to do this however (except they told you you could when you bought it). If my business sells you something, and that something is what I said it was, once the deal is done, it's done. I am under no obligation to take it back.
Should people be able to 'share files' on the Internet? Certainly. Should the internet be 'filtered'? No. Waste of resources.
Should Napster be allowed? no. Why? Because.
Napster is a company. Napster is in business (initially) to attract a large userbase, to make money off those users using napster, probably by advertising.
Napster, the company, KNEW they would be popular because tom, dick, and harry would use their service to pirate music (something illegal).
Therefore, Napster, the company, has a business based primarily on helping people do something illegal.
Now.. can people do it anyway? Yes. Should all file-sharing software be illegal? But napster is more than software, it's a company and a service, that exists to help people break the law. This cannot be argued; yes people CAN use it for other things, but that's not why Napster, the company, exists.
Let's all remember; if you are making copyrighted music available to others online, you *ARE* breaking the law, regardles of how rediculous we all think it is. I'm not saying don't do it; I'd be a hypocrite if I did... but let's not get carried away.
Should people be able to share data with each other? Sure. Should you be able to make money of helping them to do it? Sure. Should your business be permitted to succeed by helping people do something illegal? No.
I'm sorry. Someone speaking publicly on an issue saying outright FUD to the public IS speaking to everyone, and FUD should be called as FUD.
Those who knowingly spread FUD should be called for what they are. Mundie said a bunch of misleading bullshit, so why shouldn't linux call it as he sees it? Mundie is responsible for what he says.
.. I understood it to mean that unless these things were explicitly disclaimed, they would be applied.
SO as long as there is a shrinkwrap license disclaiming everything.... the UCITA doesn't help the consumer out.
Or perhaps it means that the contract that disclaims these rights under ucita must be a *real* contract, involving signing papers, etc? As in large business software, etc.
Also.. regardless of disclaimers, or contracts, if software does not work as advertised, you CAN take it back. False advertising is illegal, and any sale resulting from it is fraudulent.
As of 10 or 15 years ago or so (I think) scanners in the us (yes, commonly called police scanners) are not permitted to scan cellular frequencies.
There are professional models you can buy, I'm sure, that may let you, but they are generally for use in labs, and cost a fortune. Of course you can modify your ratshack scanner.....
IF you look at a cool product like the winradio (www.winradio.com) you will notice that the US version has several bands blocked; the euro & Canadian versions don't.
Canada, and many other places, receiving any transmission is legal.
Decryption of private communications may be a different matter.
This is not a 'new kernel'. It hasn't got 'new features'. It has bugfixes and improvements on existing features. Whenever fixes and improvements are considered stable, they should be released. Or to quote the OSS mantra 'Release early, release often'.
Too fast? this is no faster/slower than any other kernel in the past.... this is normal.
In my 9 years of linux kernels, I've never put kernels anywhere but/usr/src/linux
And I've never compiled them anywhere else either.
Never caused me a minute of problem.
They are accessing resources on a network (even just to probe to see if they are there) that they *know* they do not have authorization to use. They suspect that these networks are configured with loose security, so they check it out. Under US Law, I'd bet that's not legal.
If it's just radio waves.. why are cellular phone scanners illegal in the US? (As opposed to Canada, where radio transmissions *are* public)
that a microwave oven with no door has the kind of radiation pattern you think it does? Something tells me you just solved for a perfect omni source..which a microwave oven with no door certainly isn't.
if you consider the possibilities, there are differences.
Sunlight heats from the outside in. That's radiant heat.
Microwave heats uniformly, so the heating action (albeit very very tiny from a cellphone) is happening inside your head, where temperatures are very tightly regulated.
The mechanism of action is different as well. Sunlight heats through absorption of infrared.
Microwaves heat through causing water molecules to vibrate in the EM field they create.
Oh. Also.. microwave ovens work at 2.4Ghz... would an 800Mhz microwave oven have the same effect? or 5Ghz? I wonder....
You know.. Something has always bothered me about regulation. Now, being Canadian, I'm talking about the CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television Commission), our equivalent of the FCC.
Years ago, in my hometown, some entrepreneurs applied for an FM license. They had all the funds for equipment, transmitters, staff, etc. They were very serious.. and the CRTC turned them down.. why? Not because there was no spectrum left (we only have 3 FM stations).. but because 'The Market in that town is not large enough to support a 4th FM station'. Now that set off alarm bells.
I always pictured their role as being one of regulating a public resource (radio spectrum) to ensure it was used fairly and responsibly, not to regulate the MARKET that those airwaves bring about.
People have to remember, the airwaves are a public resource, and we want them managed properly. It's silly for big business to be able to tie up airwaves with old technology when other newer stuff that could advance society is available.
1) The article says nothing about Windows or any other OS.
2) Yes, NASA uses Windows.. they use windows 95 on their laptops aboard the station.... because they have long-standing procedures on how to use these notebooks reliably. When they crash, they know how long it takes to reset them, and just what to do, etc.
But please don't just make it out like Windows fucked up the ISS. That's silly.
No, the two do not necessarily go together. It follows that companies that provide good service will attract business away from those who don't.
The issue is that, with the ma-bell, it was *impossible* for there to even BE any competition. They had a legal, government-enforced monopoly. That means that even if someone *has* a high-quality, good alternative way of using the system, they can't.
Because, that infrastructure is granted to them by the public; right of ways and such. It is because of regulation that they were *allowed* to run the cable in the first place. They are, in effect, entrusted with the wired infrastructure in a city. They pay to maintain it, but are also permitted to make profits off it within limits.
Phone lines are not what was limited to 56k; voice circuits were (and still are) limited to 56k. DSL uses more bandwidth (in the analog sense) than a voice filter will pass.
This is a new rendering engine, built from scratch, that can read q3a datafiles, and has similar advanced features as the q3a engine (though not identical). It's not a game, you can't play q3a on it.
Oh yeah.
Of course, it's true that a great many people were made 'IT Managers' by their bosses because they appeared to know more about computers than the boss, and the boss trusted them, because they were friends, and neither of them are 'experienced' at running companies.
Yes, the IT Manager *should* understand, and care, how things work, and about scalability and such. In fact, it should be his JOB to ensure that whatever is done by his department is communicated properly to those outside in terms of cost. What's the cost for a scalable system? How long will it take? what are the risks of not doing it? These are all things that he is supposed to do.
As for Management -vs- Employees in terms of salaries, in many cases, managers should make more. The flip side of your argument reads 'how can I Manage some employees for the company if they all get paid more than I do?'. You don't pay people more than those who work under them, very bad practice. Managers, however, should be paid appropriately. Let's say tehre are 5 mid-level IT workers working for the manager.. and those 5 guys make, say, $75k, the manager should make perhaps $90? He should NOT be making $150. Now, if that manager is responsible for managier 50 or so of these employees, in a larger department, perhaps he SHOULD make more.
If you are in a situation where managers are not held accountable to their duties, then something is wrong. If you take 20 IT workers, and try to run a department without management, though, it doesn't work.
I've been in the frustrating bad-management positions before: The manager in charge of the IT guys makes shitty decisions, doesn't listen, doesn't care, yet limits what the IT guys can do. In turn, the IT guys are the ones who are given shit when things don't go the way the manager's boss wanted. Had I had teh experience I have now, I woudl have taken the other IT guys, and talked directly to the boss.
Of course, in a huge company, this probably won't get you too far.
Also... on the topic of salary. I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.'. That holds true at work too... You shouldn't take a job unless you accept the terms of employment, and are satisified with them. Just because you found out someone else makes more than you is no reason to suddenly be bitter; you accepted the job.
I'm not sure what you are getting at about John's name not being on the RFC.. he passed away recently. And sadly enough, we don't have a way for him to work his magic from beyond the grave (It would be nice if we did though)
All shareholders are not required; only a majority, and as Phillip & Friends DID have by far the majority shares, it doesn't *matter* what the VC's wanted to do. Eve had the voted 'nay' at a meeting, it could not change the outcome.
I choose 'Manipulative VC's', as obviously there was some vast misunderstanding about who would control what.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I could quote the math, but I just don't know it that well. What I do know, from working quite a bit with basically this same thing, is this.
It's not accurate to say 'you can't use an amplifier' nor 'if you don't use an amplifier, whatever you do is legal.'. Both can keep you with the bounds of the ISM rules, or take you outside of it, depending on what you do.
The point is, the right high-gain directional antennae alone can take you outside the technically legal limits of 2.4Ghz ISM. And other situations, you can amplify the signal as long as you stay within the specified limits.
Anyone with some real knowledge of the math involved want to explain this better? (Or correct me?)
People who exercise options and just hang onto the stock are being incredibly stupid, or are severely misinformed. There is *NO REASON AT ALL* to do such a thing. Simply holding the options harbors no risk at all. There is absolutely no need to exercise until you want to sell.
You can exercise, and then have your broker shortsell on the exercise date to recover your costs. Or before, if you want (slight risk if the stock goes up before exercise date).If you short it and your exercise date is a day or two later, and the stock drops, all the better (you incurr a slight capital gain on top of the option benefit, but that's good)
Blaming the fall of silicon vally on this option benefit tax is rediculous; again, there is absolutely no reason to exercise the options until you are ready to sell. The options themselves harbor no risk, but if you exercise, you open yourself up to a dangerous tax liability.
Also... (this is how it works in Canada)... capital losses can only be used to offset capital gains... so the massive capital loss you get in your scenario doesn't help you at all unless you happen to have some large capital gains elsewhere.
I made the mistake of not selling all the stock I exercised, and it cost me dearly. It's silly that I have to pay tax on money I never really had... but I knew the risk beforehand. If you ask me, stock option benefit should be capital gains, not income... but unfortunately, it's not.
Cheers.
Two things.
1) You are using napster to acquire software by unlawful means.
2) By your own admission, you KNOW anyone can come and copy the music you have already downloaded. This is distribution, my friend. You are making the material available to people for download.
The Napster program was designed *To help people trade mp3*, and the Napster company was formed because doing so was thought (Rightly so) to be wildly popular.
I doubt they would ever sue an individual napster user, you are right. But the piont here is that, regardless of how you want to micro-analyze what individual users do, Napster is in business to help people illegally distribute music. Trying to deny that is SILLY.
Tell me this. Are you trying to say that, in the use of napster, no crimes have been comitted, no copyrights have been violated, and nobody has done anything the least bit illegal? If not, who HAS done something illegal?
If you said 'I didn't know napster was sharing stuff' you might ahve a case.
But you KNOW you are sharing them with people, you are specifically using napster to MAKE them available to other napster users. It's silly to argue that you 'aren't doing anything wrong'.
You having the mp3's is not illegal. You spreading them around without the permission of the copyright holder IS.
Napster is being accused of contributory infringement because their business, as I explained, is based on HELPING PEOPLE SHARE mp3, knowing that it will be wildly popular because people will use it to illegally pirate music.
Napster users *are* directly distributing the material. it's just like if they had a store selling pirated CD's of popular tunes, and it was free. People who took the time could come in , browse, and just grab what they want.
I've returned software, opened, before.
I even returned a copy of Jane's F-18 because I thought it sucked. It didn't at all work in the 'advanced' way I wanted it to, and Electronics Botique took it back, no complaints. Due to this nice practice, I happily bought something else from them after they credited my credit card with a refund.
As for the 'open box' policy, that holds true for situations like my Janes situation; I was a bit disappointed, but nobody lied to me. If I walk into any store, and say 'I need an accounting package that handles Euros' and the guy sells me a package, saying it handles euros, and it DOESN'T, then they *HAVE* to take it back. There is no way of saying 'you opened it'. It was sold under false pretenses.
I've had many salespeople try to tell me 'you can't return it if it's open'. These salesmen only understand the store policy. They only say this because most large stores of any kind of product tend to take returns for 'any reason at all' without hassle. Don't like the sweater you bought? Bring it back for a refund. THey are under no legal obligation to do this however (except they told you you could when you bought it). If my business sells you something, and that something is what I said it was, once the deal is done, it's done. I am under no obligation to take it back.
Should people be able to 'share files' on the Internet? Certainly. Should the internet be 'filtered'? No. Waste of resources.
Should Napster be allowed? no. Why? Because.
Napster is a company. Napster is in business (initially) to attract a large userbase, to make money off those users using napster, probably by advertising.
Napster, the company, KNEW they would be popular because tom, dick, and harry would use their service to pirate music (something illegal).
Therefore, Napster, the company, has a business based primarily on helping people do something illegal.
Now.. can people do it anyway? Yes. Should all file-sharing software be illegal? But napster is more than software, it's a company and a service, that exists to help people break the law. This cannot be argued; yes people CAN use it for other things, but that's not why Napster, the company, exists.
Let's all remember; if you are making copyrighted music available to others online, you *ARE* breaking the law, regardles of how rediculous we all think it is. I'm not saying don't do it; I'd be a hypocrite if I did... but let's not get carried away.
Should people be able to share data with each other? Sure. Should you be able to make money of helping them to do it? Sure. Should your business be permitted to succeed by helping people do something illegal? No.
As cool as this sounds.. I recall reading this exact stuff at least 3 years ago.
It's not new news.
I'm sorry. Someone speaking publicly on an issue saying outright FUD to the public IS speaking to everyone, and FUD should be called as FUD.
Those who knowingly spread FUD should be called for what they are. Mundie said a bunch of misleading bullshit, so why shouldn't linux call it as he sees it? Mundie is responsible for what he says.
.. I understood it to mean that unless these things were explicitly disclaimed, they would be applied.
SO as long as there is a shrinkwrap license disclaiming everything.... the UCITA doesn't help the consumer out.
Or perhaps it means that the contract that disclaims these rights under ucita must be a *real* contract, involving signing papers, etc? As in large business software, etc.
Also.. regardless of disclaimers, or contracts, if software does not work as advertised, you CAN take it back. False advertising is illegal, and any sale resulting from it is fraudulent.
As of 10 or 15 years ago or so (I think) scanners in the us (yes, commonly called police scanners) are not permitted to scan cellular frequencies.
There are professional models you can buy, I'm sure, that may let you, but they are generally for use in labs, and cost a fortune. Of course you can modify your ratshack scanner.....
IF you look at a cool product like the winradio (www.winradio.com) you will notice that the US version has several bands blocked; the euro & Canadian versions don't.
Canada, and many other places, receiving any transmission is legal.
Decryption of private communications may be a different matter.
The money would just be re-directed into a slush fund for the cia or to the DEA to fight the war.
This is not a 'new kernel'. It hasn't got 'new features'. It has bugfixes and improvements on existing features. Whenever fixes and improvements are considered stable, they should be released. Or to quote the OSS mantra 'Release early, release often'.
Too fast? this is no faster/slower than any other kernel in the past.... this is normal.
In my 9 years of linux kernels, I've never put kernels anywhere but /usr/src/linux
And I've never compiled them anywhere else either.
Never caused me a minute of problem.
They are accessing resources on a network (even just to probe to see if they are there) that they *know* they do not have authorization to use. They suspect that these networks are configured with loose security, so they check it out. Under US Law, I'd bet that's not legal.
If it's just radio waves.. why are cellular phone scanners illegal in the US? (As opposed to Canada, where radio transmissions *are* public)
that a microwave oven with no door has the kind of radiation pattern you think it does? Something tells me you just solved for a perfect omni source..which a microwave oven with no door certainly isn't.
if you consider the possibilities, there are differences.
Sunlight heats from the outside in. That's radiant heat.
Microwave heats uniformly, so the heating action (albeit very very tiny from a cellphone) is happening inside your head, where temperatures are very tightly regulated.
The mechanism of action is different as well. Sunlight heats through absorption of infrared.
Microwaves heat through causing water molecules to vibrate in the EM field they create.
Oh. Also.. microwave ovens work at 2.4Ghz... would an 800Mhz microwave oven have the same effect? or 5Ghz? I wonder....
You know.. Something has always bothered me about regulation. Now, being Canadian, I'm talking about the CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television Commission), our equivalent of the FCC.
Years ago, in my hometown, some entrepreneurs applied for an FM license. They had all the funds for equipment, transmitters, staff, etc. They were very serious.. and the CRTC turned them down.. why? Not because there was no spectrum left (we only have 3 FM stations).. but because 'The Market in that town is not large enough to support a 4th FM station'. Now that set off alarm bells.
I always pictured their role as being one of regulating a public resource (radio spectrum) to ensure it was used fairly and responsibly, not to regulate the MARKET that those airwaves bring about.
People have to remember, the airwaves are a public resource, and we want them managed properly. It's silly for big business to be able to tie up airwaves with old technology when other newer stuff that could advance society is available.
1) The article says nothing about Windows or any other OS.
2) Yes, NASA uses Windows.. they use windows 95 on their laptops aboard the station.... because they have long-standing procedures on how to use these notebooks reliably. When they crash, they know how long it takes to reset them, and just what to do, etc.
But please don't just make it out like Windows fucked up the ISS. That's silly.
No, the two do not necessarily go together. It follows that companies that provide good service will attract business away from those who don't.
The issue is that, with the ma-bell, it was *impossible* for there to even BE any competition. They had a legal, government-enforced monopoly. That means that even if someone *has* a high-quality, good alternative way of using the system, they can't.
Unix is what it is today because of competition.
Because, that infrastructure is granted to them by the public; right of ways and such. It is because of regulation that they were *allowed* to run the cable in the first place. They are, in effect, entrusted with the wired infrastructure in a city. They pay to maintain it, but are also permitted to make profits off it within limits.
Phone lines are not what was limited to 56k; voice circuits were (and still are) limited to 56k. DSL uses more bandwidth (in the analog sense) than a voice filter will pass.
This is a new rendering engine, built from scratch, that can read q3a datafiles, and has similar advanced features as the q3a engine (though not identical). It's not a game, you can't play q3a on it.
Oh yeah.
Of course, it's true that a great many people were made 'IT Managers' by their bosses because they appeared to know more about computers than the boss, and the boss trusted them, because they were friends, and neither of them are 'experienced' at running companies.
Good points! Here are my thoughts.
Yes, the IT Manager *should* understand, and care, how things work, and about scalability and such. In fact, it should be his JOB to ensure that whatever is done by his department is communicated properly to those outside in terms of cost. What's the cost for a scalable system? How long will it take? what are the risks of not doing it? These are all things that he is supposed to do.
As for Management -vs- Employees in terms of salaries, in many cases, managers should make more. The flip side of your argument reads 'how can I Manage some employees for the company if they all get paid more than I do?'. You don't pay people more than those who work under them, very bad practice. Managers, however, should be paid appropriately. Let's say tehre are 5 mid-level IT workers working for the manager.. and those 5 guys make, say, $75k, the manager should make perhaps $90? He should NOT be making $150. Now, if that manager is responsible for managier 50 or so of these employees, in a larger department, perhaps he SHOULD make more.
If you are in a situation where managers are not held accountable to their duties, then something is wrong. If you take 20 IT workers, and try to run a department without management, though, it doesn't work.
I've been in the frustrating bad-management positions before: The manager in charge of the IT guys makes shitty decisions, doesn't listen, doesn't care, yet limits what the IT guys can do. In turn, the IT guys are the ones who are given shit when things don't go the way the manager's boss wanted. Had I had teh experience I have now, I woudl have taken the other IT guys, and talked directly to the boss.
Of course, in a huge company, this probably won't get you too far.
Also... on the topic of salary. I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.'. That holds true at work too... You shouldn't take a job unless you accept the terms of employment, and are satisified with them. Just because you found out someone else makes more than you is no reason to suddenly be bitter; you accepted the job.
I'm not sure what you are getting at about John's name not being on the RFC.. he passed away recently. And sadly enough, we don't have a way for him to work his magic from beyond the grave (It would be nice if we did though)
All shareholders are not required; only a majority, and as Phillip & Friends DID have by far the majority shares, it doesn't *matter* what the VC's wanted to do. Eve had the voted 'nay' at a meeting, it could not change the outcome.
I choose 'Manipulative VC's', as obviously there was some vast misunderstanding about who would control what.