It is extremely common for Anime enthusiasts to watch things in original Japanese, perhaps with english subtitles, rather than to see them dubbed. It's very common.. so it is obvious that those selling the dvd have no concept of this culture.
GPLv2, end of section 3, starting halfway through second-last paragraph.
"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."
Pretty clear. If the library in question is a standard part of the operating system you are designing for, you don't have to include source. If you are shipping the library with the GPL'd program, then you DO have to include source.
So.. if libqt is part of Mandrake 7.1, I don't see a problem with saying that you are coding for mandrake 7.1, and that your software is designed for mandrake 7.1.
It is a bit misleading.. it should say 'intended platform' instead of 'platform on which the software runs', as that is non-specific.
Really. This is out of hand. One day someone posts it in one of their followup comments to another story. 2 days later, it appears as a frontpage link.
Seing as how the page has been there for ages.. could it be that a bunch of/.ians submitted the article based on this? And now we see it keep creeping up? Get real.
It's funny how much/. influences the mindset of geeks. I get geeks phoning me telling me about something a freind told a friend who told a friend.. who I *know* saw it on/..
I find it unethical as well. But those are my ethics. I vote with my money, though.. When an advertisement seems insulting or misleading, I try my very best to a) let the company know and b) not spend any money there.
And fine-print doesn't always matter when it comes to matters of perception.
Yes. The OS side of things is simply a tool for sun to use in providing solutions.
Unix just happens to be the base they work from.
People can rave all they want about how 'linux is better' or 'freebsd is better'. Well.. better for what? Better for learning/hacking on? sure.
Can your little linux/x86 box that you are planning on buying come close to touching what an e10k can do? Hell no.. not even remotely close. My 350Mhz ultra-5 workstation probably crunches numbers better than a Ghz PIII.
I agree. It used to be illegal to use the word 'free' in advertising *at all* unless something actuall was free.
An ad saying 'come on down and get your Free mattress today!' meant exactly that. If people showed up, and you said 'it's only free if you buy another one first', you got sued..
2.4Ghz ISM band to be exact (not exactly 2.4Ghz). I believe it's from 2.4 to 2.45, but I'm not sure.
BTW.. have you tested the wavelan cards once they were set up? I've done some lab testing, and found that the 11 meg wavelan cards drop down to 5Mbps and then to 2mbps if signal degrades.. and don't go back up until reset.
Also.. what kind of actual throughput do you get? Again.. my lab tests show 11Mbps lucent wavelan cards get about 5.5Mbps of actual throughput while bridging. The 11Mbps refers to the radio channel, and not at all to what you actually get out of them.
Funny.. all other mediums also do this too(specify channel speed rather than throughput), however, in all other mediums, throughput is very close to channel maximum.. but not in radio;)
It's a good topic. I think we need to remember something, though: The way we use the spectrum is compltely subjective. "Channels" only exist due to the use of current modulation schemes, and regulation. Radio bands, or channels, do not really exist. There is no real 'division' between bands, other than those we impose on ourselves.
I have read several papers, and other sources that would lead me to believe that the future of wireless is not in specific channel allocation for different tasks, but a completely new use of spectrum. Something like this:
Various frequency regions in RF exhibit various different properties. Low frequencies can circle the globe unaided, and travel through just about anything.. higher frequencies can carry much more data, but require line-of-sight, but also require much less power to go the distance.
I think something that acts comceptually as a wideband transciever (something that can go from DC to light, ideally) with a good power range, and a modulation scheme that may not exist yet, coupled with a smart digital element to handle routing and such.. say a million of these radio units are placed all over the US. They can all see numerous other units. They can all talk to each other on an amazing number of bands. We will have the electronics figure it out for us. There's more than enough bandwidth, if we do it this way, for everyone to do everything, without having to allocate spectrum.
Well.. the *real* answer to this question is... there is *LOTS and LOTS*. Remember, the airwaves *belong* to the people, and are only licensed to others to keep things orderly. Companies that have a license for band XXX don't *own* that band, and their license is only temporary, and must be renewed. If a switch to massive broadband digital were to be enforced, many existing services could switch to digital, and TONS of bandwidth could be recovered.
Actually, they could hand them out to the public.. these are not tactical simulations, but actual particle simulations.
I believe the problem arises in the amount of shared data required between nodes... it's not like cracking a key where you can just chop they keyspace up into as many pieces as you like and work on them all separately.. you have to have the entire dataset in order to work on it properly..
If you introduce those poeple because you know that one of them is looking to purchase cocaine, and the other is selling it, then yes, you *are* breaking the law.. you are aiding and abetting a crime.
Why should something that would normally be illegal be protected just because it's on the net? I hate seeing my beautiful technohaven turned into a commercial crap pile as much as the next guy.. but that's just how they want us to think..
we can still do the same things we always have with the net. It just so happens that intentionally directing people to illegal materials is, in fact, illegal.. net or not...
Okay. But look at it another way. What if Apache supports it, along side http? This sounds possible. And perhaps mozilla would support it. That's all it would take, really...
As for how long it's taking ipv6 to be adopted.. the main reason nobody is adopting it is because there is currently not reason to use it!
If enough restrictions are placed on what can be done over a network, new networks without such restrictions will pop up, possibly using different protocols.
Fundamentally, Internet can happen with or without current protocols..
Slashdot Mirror
It is extremely common for Anime enthusiasts to watch things in original Japanese, perhaps with english subtitles, rather than to see them dubbed. It's very common..
so it is obvious that those selling the dvd have no concept of this culture.
I still maintain that it is *not* illegal to distribute GPL code linked against QT, provided that QT is standard on the target platform.
Except, if QT is considered a standard part of the OS(and if the distribution includes it, then it is), then they are free and clear.
GPLv2, end of section 3, starting halfway through second-last paragraph.
"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable."
Pretty clear. If the library in question is a standard part of the operating system you are designing for, you don't have to include source.
If you are shipping the library with the GPL'd program, then you DO have to include source.
So.. if libqt is part of Mandrake 7.1, I don't see a problem with saying that you are coding for mandrake 7.1, and that your software is designed for mandrake 7.1.
It is a bit misleading.. it should say 'intended platform' instead of 'platform on which the software runs', as that is non-specific.
Really. This is out of hand.
/.ians submitted the article based on this? And now we see it keep creeping up? Get real.
/. influences the mindset of geeks. I get geeks phoning me telling me about something a freind told a friend who told a friend.. who I *know* saw it on /..
One day someone posts it in one of their followup comments to another story.
2 days later, it appears as a frontpage link.
Seing as how the page has been there for ages.. could it be that a bunch of
It's funny how much
I find it unethical as well. But those are my ethics.
I vote with my money, though..
When an advertisement seems insulting or misleading, I try my very best to a) let the company know and b) not spend any money there.
And fine-print doesn't always matter when it comes to matters of perception.
Yes. The OS side of things is simply a tool for sun to use in providing solutions.
Unix just happens to be the base they work from.
People can rave all they want about how 'linux is better' or 'freebsd is better'.
Well.. better for what?
Better for learning/hacking on? sure.
Can your little linux/x86 box that you are planning on buying come close to touching what an e10k can do? Hell no.. not even remotely close.
My 350Mhz ultra-5 workstation probably crunches numbers better than a Ghz PIII.
I agree.
It used to be illegal to use the word 'free' in advertising *at all* unless something actuall was free.
An ad saying 'come on down and get your Free mattress today!' meant exactly that. If people showed up, and you said 'it's only free if you buy another one first', you got sued..
2.4Ghz ISM band to be exact (not exactly 2.4Ghz).
;)
I believe it's from 2.4 to 2.45, but I'm not sure.
BTW.. have you tested the wavelan cards once they were set up? I've done some lab testing, and found that the 11 meg wavelan cards drop down to 5Mbps and then to 2mbps if signal degrades.. and don't go back up until reset.
Also.. what kind of actual throughput do you get? Again.. my lab tests show 11Mbps lucent wavelan cards get about 5.5Mbps of actual throughput while bridging. The 11Mbps refers to the radio channel, and not at all to what you actually get out of them.
Funny.. all other mediums also do this too(specify channel speed rather than throughput), however, in all other mediums, throughput is very close to channel maximum.. but not in radio
It's a good topic.
I think we need to remember something, though:
The way we use the spectrum is compltely subjective. "Channels" only exist due to the use of current modulation schemes, and regulation.
Radio bands, or channels, do not really exist. There is no real 'division' between bands, other than those we impose on ourselves.
I have read several papers, and other sources that would lead me to believe that the future of wireless is not in specific channel allocation for different tasks, but a completely new use of spectrum.
Something like this:
Various frequency regions in RF exhibit various different properties. Low frequencies can circle the globe unaided, and travel through just about anything.. higher frequencies can carry much more data, but require line-of-sight, but also require much less power to go the distance.
I think something that acts comceptually as a wideband transciever (something that can go from DC to light, ideally) with a good power range, and a modulation scheme that may not exist yet, coupled with a smart digital element to handle routing and such..
say a million of these radio units are placed all over the US. They can all see numerous other units. They can all talk to each other on an amazing number of bands. We will have the electronics figure it out for us.
There's more than enough bandwidth, if we do it this way, for everyone to do everything, without having to allocate spectrum.
Umm.. 'matched' visible light? It would *BE* visible light...
You imply distinction where there is none.
Visible light is just EM at the appropriate frequency.
Actaully, 'sound' has nothing to do with it...
sound != RF
Netsol updated the nike.com NS records based on a bogus email.
This ISP had their nameserver hacked, and the hacker created a nike.com zone.
And.... nike is at fault? None of this had anything whatsoever to do with any system even remotely controlled by Nike...
Well.. the *real* answer to this question is... there is *LOTS and LOTS*. Remember, the airwaves *belong* to the people, and are only licensed to others to keep things orderly. Companies that have a license for band XXX don't *own* that band, and their license is only temporary, and must be renewed. If a switch to massive broadband digital were to be enforced, many existing services could switch to digital, and TONS of bandwidth could be recovered.
They already used 'Blue'. Twice.
Asci Blue Pacific (Livermore) 1999
Asci Blue Mountain (Los Alamos) 1998
And Red.
Asci Red (Sandia) 1999
So, being American.. it's time for white, yes?
Actually, they could hand them out to the public.. these are not tactical simulations, but actual particle simulations.
I believe the problem arises in the amount of shared data required between nodes... it's not like cracking a key where you can just chop they keyspace up into as many pieces as you like and work on them all separately.. you have to have the entire dataset in order to work on it properly..
You mean a packet with the 'OOB' (out of band) flag set... right?
Would you rather they did open-air explosions to do their tests?
Who's talking about linking to sites? we're talking about direct links to copyrighten material.
Direct links to mp3's on other sites.
If you introduce those poeple because you know that one of them is looking to purchase cocaine, and the other is selling it, then yes, you *are* breaking the law.. you are aiding and abetting a crime.
Why should something that would normally be illegal be protected just because it's on the net?
I hate seeing my beautiful technohaven turned into a commercial crap pile as much as the next guy.. but that's just how they want us to think..
we can still do the same things we always have with the net. It just so happens that intentionally directing people to illegal materials is, in fact, illegal.. net or not...
Okay. But look at it another way.
What if Apache supports it, along side http? This sounds possible. And perhaps mozilla would support it. That's all it would take, really...
As for how long it's taking ipv6 to be adopted.. the main reason nobody is adopting it is because there is currently not reason to use it!
Actually.. they only have that 'right' because governments (in other words, the poeple) allow it.
Don't kid yourself.
I must say. I really enjoy using google. I really really do. No advertising. pure search.
Hmm. So now yahoo isn't even a 'search' engine anymore.... they are just an index.
If enough restrictions are placed on what can be done over a network, new networks without such restrictions will pop up, possibly using different protocols.
Fundamentally, Internet can happen with or without current protocols..