Wireless doesn't do collision detection... because you can't. You only do avoidance (more overhead)
The bottom line is, what number SHOULD we put on teh spec? Call it 11Mbps? It's only approximately that, and that doesn't really tell you anything about the spec. Calling it 54Mbps is totally, completely accurate, and those who misunderstand simply, well, do not understand.
And the US shouild have known about 9/11 beforehand as well, that was a failure of the intelligence community.
Gimme a break. YES, the information was there beforehand, and it COULD have been predicted. Just like a million other things that DIDN'T and WON'T happen. It's easy to look back and say "we should have known". It's a lot harder to look forward and say "what's going to happen tomorrow"
It's always easy to make it look like it was obvious when you have a common event to work backwards from.
I mean, it's not like executives in companies that size only have short periods of time every year when they can actually sell stock legally. Oh wait, that's true.
So.. if you had that money invested in microsoft, you would not sell it either?
An EMPLOYEE of microsoft, such as we are discussing here, has no obligation to own ANY stock in the company. Selling publicly, at fair market price, small percentages of their stock at a time is *THE MOST RESPONSIBLE* way they can do it. How else do you propose they be permitted to sell their stock?
Do you think selling a few thousand out of almost 10 billion shares is going to drop the price?
Because private islands are BORING. Having everything just becuase you have money is BORING. There is no challenge to it, life ceases to have meaning.
Oh, I'm not saying that I wouldn't live in the lap of luxury if I were that rich.. but simply existing and being wated upon would not be a satisfying life.
IT's always some big deal when some exec gets rid of stock. There are only certain times when execs can get rid of stock... this is becuase of that thing called insider trading. At a certain level, especially in a large company with a high profile, there are very strict guidelines as to when someone can sell their stock. That means that often, you will see clusters of execs at a company selling at the same time, and people call out concpisracy.. no, it's because by law, or by the company's rules, they MUST do it at a certain, narrow time period.
Secondly, if stock is given as an employment incentive, why do we give those execs a hard time for selling it? Why does it have to be about confidence in the company? Confidence in the company won't buy you a new yacht, dollars will.
If Ballmer was given stock, he has every right in the world to sell it.
It's not that the companies have to go to extreme lengths to prevent you from violating regs with their hardware, but they do have to take proper measures so joe average does not do so. Giving open specs to OSS developers might get them in shit.
Everyoen talks briefly about these attributes mainframes have. I want to know more spefics... why exactly does the use of older languages on these machines, and what is it about the design of hte machiens, that makes them still attractive.
By "legacy" i mean those institutions that have upgraded incrementally over the years and continue to use mainframes mainly because they have always used them, in other words, if a new system were to be designed, it may actually be done without mainframes, but they stick to them anyway.
I'm looking for DETAILS... not one-word reasons why they are used.
Agreeing to share improvements isn't what it's about. That's somethign the open source world likes to do, but it's not what the GPL is about.
The GPL is about providing the source, and the freedom that that gives you as a person/developer, to anyone who you distribute the work to, including the source to your modifications. THat enables THAT person to choose to do what they want.
It's entirely possible for me to take a GPL app, modfiy the crap out of it, and distribute it to a dozen of my friends, who all refuse to give it to anyone else. We could easily effectively keep peopel from obtaining our changes.
You have to either provide equivalent access to the source to everyone you distribute to.. so posting online alongside the binaries covers this, as does putting them both in the same package or distribution media. In this case, when you stop distributing one, you can stop distributing the other, and have no furtehr obligation (providing equal access to the source online is the same thing effectively as providing the source in a single package with the binaries)
OR You can provide a written offer valid for so many years to provide the soruce to anyone who asks.
Now, that language is a bit confusing, but I interpret "anyone who asks" as meaning that written offer is trasnferrable. I can't refuse to give your buddy teh source if you gave him your offer. It's still an OFFER TO PROVIDE THE SOURCE... meaning: when someone wants to USE that offer, they can provide me with teh written offer, I will provide them with the source, and my obligation is finished.
The best solution, I think, is to provide the source, always, with the binaries you distribute. That ends your obligation under the GPL. You are in no way required to give that source to everyone else on the planet.
You either have to provide equivalent access to the source (offering the source online alongside the binaries is fine, as is including the source and binaries in one package), OR you have to provide a written offer valid for several years, I think 5, to provide the source upon demand for no more than the cost of media & shipping to anyone who asks.
If there was no written offer included, explaining the situation, adn there were no sources offered online, or anywhere else, then they were not complying with the license.
Let's hear some specifics, if anyone has them, about WHY those mainframes are in use, and what advantages they have. Real numbers, if possible.
WE wll know they are bigger, mroe robust, fault tolerant, etc, and run weird operating systems, and people only use weird languages on them like rexx and cobol and fortran.
What is the gain? Why are these languages used? What is the real deal with mainframes, and why would anyone other than a legacy operation want one nowadays?
I thought the private part wasn't about security & hiding your code.. but about just making it generally unavailable. The point was that nobody is supposed to use them, and they know that.. not that they are supposed to never, ever find out about them... or am I totally wrong?
with 2.4Ghz ISM wireless network stuff, anyway... on the manufacturing & design side...
This is something I hadn't thought of in terms of software. I mean, if you make, say, a wireless router, there are various laws you have to follow to get approval in various places.. things like:
The antenna connector has to be non-standard. This is why you'll see like, a TNC conenctor with the threads reversed, or the gender parts half swapped, etc. It's so consmers don't hook it up to amplifiers and things.. or rather, so they understand that they are not supposed to. The same goes for software functions.. there are many functions accessible in the software that would allowt eh device to operate outside of the allowabloe parameters, but we had to keep those hidden & inaccessible. If they were presented to the customer, the customer woudl be able to violate FCC just by using commands we supplied them.
So.. I never considered that with regards to linux drivers.. but it is a good point.
SCO did not have to license anything under the GPL. Nobody forced them to. They were in no way forced to get into the linux business.
The GPL does not "force you to release your source".
OTHER PEOPEL gave SCO their work for free, under the condition that if they base stuff on it, they release it under the GPL.
And NONE of this has to do with the SCO lawsuit. You want to argue why you think BSD is better, tha'ts fine.. I make no argument either way. My only point is that this isn't about the GPL.
SCO did not have to work with linux. They could have worked with BSD, eh?
This lawsuit is full of BS. It's OBVIOUSLY full of BS. It will be a no brainer in court. Read the position paper linked.. not that I'm a big OSI fan.. but the paper states verifiable facts.
This is about creating negative press for Linux, and microsoft is counting on it while it launches it's new server OS, Windows Server 2003. more customers than ever are looking at breaking out of the microsoft upgrade cycle... consider that.
They want as much bad press now during release time as they can get.
1) IBM's settlement gives them non-transferrable rights to the SCO IP. IBM distributes Linux with SCO IP included, under redistribution restrictions. Every single contributor to the packages IBM included SCO IP in gets to sue IBM for breaking the license (GPL) under which IBM gets to distribute their IP.
No. Every other copyright holder of the packages in question sues IBM for copyright violation, not license violation.
should read the OSI position paper, it's very, very informative.
The main point being, SCO's ownership of the UNIX code does not convey the kinds of IP rights you might think it does, for a variety of reasons.
- They don't own the trademark, that is owned by the Open Group. - The code they purchased does not have all the enterprise high availability features they talk about. - many companeis and people throughout the past have open access to the unix sources through prior agreements with it's prior holders. SCO does not have leeway over, say, SUN or SGI or anyone with regards to their unixes, even though they are partly based on code that SCO now owns. - Nothin in the Bel Labs unix tree can be considered trade secret... as literally every unix dveloper on earth has access to the source. Even though it was technically against copyright way back when, EVERYONE has copies of it nowadays, and it's been that way for years.
Basically, owning the UNIX code from Bell Labs just isn't worth that much nowadays, it's not secret, unique, or anything else.
this is why bt randomizes which blocks to fetch... so that even among only those who are actively downloading, most people will have chunks you need. It doesn't start at the beginning and work towards the end.
Staying online afterwards is nice, adn courteous.. but it's not necessary for bittorrent to do what it is.. which is to provide faster downloads when demand is high.
Slashdot Mirror
Wireless doesn't do collision detection... because you can't. You only do avoidance (more overhead)
The bottom line is, what number SHOULD we put on teh spec? Call it 11Mbps? It's only approximately that, and that doesn't really tell you anything about the spec. Calling it 54Mbps is totally, completely accurate, and those who misunderstand simply, well, do not understand.
And the US shouild have known about 9/11 beforehand as well, that was a failure of the intelligence community.
Gimme a break. YES, the information was there beforehand, and it COULD have been predicted. Just like a million other things that DIDN'T and WON'T happen. It's easy to look back and say "we should have known". It's a lot harder to look forward and say "what's going to happen tomorrow"
It's always easy to make it look like it was obvious when you have a common event to work backwards from.
I mean, it's not like executives in companies that size only have short periods of time every year when they can actually sell stock legally. Oh wait, that's true.
So.. if you had that money invested in microsoft, you would not sell it either?
An EMPLOYEE of microsoft, such as we are discussing here, has no obligation to own ANY stock in the company. Selling publicly, at fair market price, small percentages of their stock at a time is *THE MOST RESPONSIBLE* way they can do it. How else do you propose they be permitted to sell their stock?
Do you think selling a few thousand out of almost 10 billion shares is going to drop the price?
Because private islands are BORING. Having everything just becuase you have money is BORING. There is no challenge to it, life ceases to have meaning.
Oh, I'm not saying that I wouldn't live in the lap of luxury if I were that rich.. but simply existing and being wated upon would not be a satisfying life.
Stock options, the way microsoft uses them, are a viable way to manage things if the company is growing the way ms is/was.
If the situation changes, the company will change as well.
It's silly to say "They will be screwed".. that implies they won't make changes to their way of doing things.
I guarantee microsoft knows more about how their options affect their stock price than any critic on slashdot.
Maybe he wants to have some guaranteed cash when he retires, no matter what happens to microsoft?
He's not doing anything different than many other investors with many other companies.. he's selling stock at a profit to get cash.
IT's always some big deal when some exec gets rid of stock.
There are only certain times when execs can get rid of stock... this is becuase of that thing called insider trading. At a certain level, especially in a large company with a high profile, there are very strict guidelines as to when someone can sell their stock. That means that often, you will see clusters of execs at a company selling at the same time, and people call out concpisracy.. no, it's because by law, or by the company's rules, they MUST do it at a certain, narrow time period.
Secondly, if stock is given as an employment incentive, why do we give those execs a hard time for selling it? Why does it have to be about confidence in the company? Confidence in the company won't buy you a new yacht, dollars will.
If Ballmer was given stock, he has every right in the world to sell it.
It's not that the companies have to go to extreme lengths to prevent you from violating regs with their hardware, but they do have to take proper measures so joe average does not do so.
Giving open specs to OSS developers might get them in shit.
I'll clarify.
Everyoen talks briefly about these attributes mainframes have. I want to know more spefics... why exactly does the use of older languages on these machines, and what is it about the design of hte machiens, that makes them still attractive.
By "legacy" i mean those institutions that have upgraded incrementally over the years and continue to use mainframes mainly because they have always used them, in other words, if a new system were to be designed, it may actually be done without mainframes, but they stick to them anyway.
I'm looking for DETAILS... not one-word reasons why they are used.
It can, of course.. but the chipsets in use are more generic than you would like.
Agreeing to share improvements isn't what it's about. That's somethign the open source world likes to do, but it's not what the GPL is about.
The GPL is about providing the source, and the freedom that that gives you as a person/developer, to anyone who you distribute the work to, including the source to your modifications. THat enables THAT person to choose to do what they want.
It's entirely possible for me to take a GPL app, modfiy the crap out of it, and distribute it to a dozen of my friends, who all refuse to give it to anyone else. We could easily effectively keep peopel from obtaining our changes.
You have to either provide equivalent access to the source to everyone you distribute to.. so posting online alongside the binaries covers this, as does putting them both in the same package or distribution media. In this case, when you stop distributing one, you can stop distributing the other, and have no furtehr obligation (providing equal access to the source online is the same thing effectively as providing the source in a single package with the binaries)
OR You can provide a written offer valid for so many years to provide the soruce to anyone who asks.
Now, that language is a bit confusing, but I interpret "anyone who asks" as meaning that written offer is trasnferrable. I can't refuse to give your buddy teh source if you gave him your offer. It's still an OFFER TO PROVIDE THE SOURCE... meaning: when someone wants to USE that offer, they can provide me with teh written offer, I will provide them with the source, and my obligation is finished.
The best solution, I think, is to provide the source, always, with the binaries you distribute. That ends your obligation under the GPL. You are in no way required to give that source to everyone else on the planet.
You either have to provide equivalent access to the source (offering the source online alongside the binaries is fine, as is including the source and binaries in one package), OR you have to provide a written offer valid for several years, I think 5, to provide the source upon demand for no more than the cost of media & shipping to anyone who asks.
If there was no written offer included, explaining the situation, adn there were no sources offered online, or anywhere else, then they were not complying with the license.
Let's hear some specifics, if anyone has them, about WHY those mainframes are in use, and what advantages they have. Real numbers, if possible.
WE wll know they are bigger, mroe robust, fault tolerant, etc, and run weird operating systems, and people only use weird languages on them like rexx and cobol and fortran.
What is the gain? Why are these languages used? What is the real deal with mainframes, and why would anyone other than a legacy operation want one nowadays?
Look how many geeks out there are *INTERESTED* in the idea, and would like to learn about it...
But as you said, we "obviously have no idea how it works" because it's hard to find out! The mainframe world is a separate place, secret, etc.
So how do we change that?
And is mainframe admin worth it financially?
I thought the private part wasn't about security & hiding your code.. but about just making it generally unavailable. The point was that nobody is supposed to use them, and they know that.. not that they are supposed to never, ever find out about them... or am I totally wrong?
with 2.4Ghz ISM wireless network stuff, anyway... on the manufacturing & design side...
:
This is something I hadn't thought of in terms of software. I mean, if you make, say, a wireless router, there are various laws you have to follow to get approval in various places.. things like
The antenna connector has to be non-standard. This is why you'll see like, a TNC conenctor with the threads reversed, or the gender parts half swapped, etc. It's so consmers don't hook it up to amplifiers and things.. or rather, so they understand that they are not supposed to. The same goes for software functions.. there are many functions accessible in the software that would allowt eh device to operate outside of the allowabloe parameters, but we had to keep those hidden & inaccessible. If they were presented to the customer, the customer woudl be able to violate FCC just by using commands we supplied them.
So.. I never considered that with regards to linux drivers.. but it is a good point.
if we kill chimps for experiments, it's now homicide?
(I know it's homo.... not homi.. but homocide sounds politically incorrect..)
SCO did not have to license anything under the GPL. Nobody forced them to. They were in no way forced to get into the linux business.
The GPL does not "force you to release your source".
OTHER PEOPEL gave SCO their work for free, under the condition that if they base stuff on it, they release it under the GPL.
And NONE of this has to do with the SCO lawsuit. You want to argue why you think BSD is better, tha'ts fine.. I make no argument either way. My only point is that this isn't about the GPL.
SCO did not have to work with linux. They could have worked with BSD, eh?
This lawsuit is full of BS. It's OBVIOUSLY full of BS. It will be a no brainer in court. Read the position paper linked.. not that I'm a big OSI fan.. but the paper states verifiable facts.
This is about creating negative press for Linux, and microsoft is counting on it while it launches it's new server OS, Windows Server 2003. more customers than ever are looking at breaking out of the microsoft upgrade cycle... consider that.
They want as much bad press now during release time as they can get.
1) IBM's settlement gives them non-transferrable rights to the SCO IP. IBM distributes Linux with SCO IP included, under redistribution restrictions. Every single contributor to the packages IBM included SCO IP in gets to sue IBM for breaking the license (GPL) under which IBM gets to distribute their IP.
No. Every other copyright holder of the packages in question sues IBM for copyright violation, not license violation.
should read the OSI position paper, it's very, very informative.
The main point being, SCO's ownership of the UNIX code does not convey the kinds of IP rights you might think it does, for a variety of reasons.
- They don't own the trademark, that is owned by the Open Group.
- The code they purchased does not have all the enterprise high availability features they talk about.
- many companeis and people throughout the past have open access to the unix sources through prior agreements with it's prior holders. SCO does not have leeway over, say, SUN or SGI or anyone with regards to their unixes, even though they are partly based on code that SCO now owns.
- Nothin in the Bel Labs unix tree can be considered trade secret... as literally every unix dveloper on earth has access to the source. Even though it was technically against copyright way back when, EVERYONE has copies of it nowadays, and it's been that way for years.
Basically, owning the UNIX code from Bell Labs just isn't worth that much nowadays, it's not secret, unique, or anything else.
this isn't as much of a problem as you think...
this is why bt randomizes which blocks to fetch... so that even among only those who are actively downloading, most people will have chunks you need. It doesn't start at the beginning and work towards the end.
Staying online afterwards is nice, adn courteous.. but it's not necessary for bittorrent to do what it is.. which is to provide faster downloads when demand is high.
What does that have to do with releasing something and then later realizing you didn't want to?
I bet to differ:m
http://whistleblowerlaws.com/statutes.ht
You cannot fire someone for refusing to help you do something illegal.