If companies are going to have to deal with defending their use of open source, a time might come when they just don't want to use it anymore, lock it all down, and sue hackers like this under the DMCA.
Not only that, but perhaps they should sue libelous posters and owners of irresponsible discussion sites for the costs of dealing with false GPL violation allegations.:-)
That, and charge the real and actual cost of sorting out the license issues and providing the source and accompanying documentaiton of appropriate license for each component. This sort of charge is clearly allowed by the GPL, and could easily run into thousaands of dollars as a real and actual expense, chargeable to anyone acting as irresponsibly as the GPL crowd is here. There is no requirement that the cost to provide source be low, just that it cannot exceed the actual cost to provide it. If that cost were accurately accounted for, it would be quite expensive, particularly when a company is under GPL attack, and such things wind up tying up a half dozen people in meetings for a solid week to ensure that the right thing gets done to avoid further harassment.
Right now, the GPL is a one-way bludgeon against any company unwise enough to use GPL'ed code in a product. As this debacle proves, even if they do *nothing* wrong, the GPL bigots can still cost such a company serious money in lost productivity and PR damage (not to mention legal opinions) just by raising a bogus claim of "GPL Violation!" someplace like Slashdot, which seems to think itself immune from the responsibilities (for libel and the like) that other publishers must assume. The New York Times is (justifiably) excoriated for Jayson Blair's fabrications, and gets held to account and even apologizes. Why don't we ever see (or perhaps even expect?) similar accountability in webspace?
"One perfect example of this is Zebra, the advanced dynamic routing software package. By opening the firmware file directly, as well as by making queries through the makeshift ping interface mentioned earlier, we noticed that the zebra running on the WRT54G doesn't use the standard configuration file locations. This means that it must certainly be a modified binary."
We can only hope that Linksys prosecutes this jerk under the DMCA for illegal code tampering.:-)
It's pretty clear now that there's no GPL violation here at all, and this fellow was just trying to smear Linksys. It's exactly this sort of bahaviour among GPL zealots that makes me refuse to use any GPL code in any commercial context, ever. Even if you do absolutely *nothing* wrong, a single accusation like this can cost your company tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, opinions, and lost productivity as your staff tries futilely to engage in damage control. That sort of risk and exposure obliterates any possible savings by using GPL'ed code, so it's far cheaper and safer just to find other alternatives, or if really necessary, re-implement the crucial pieces to avoid any GPL claims on them.
Remember that Stallman and the GPL's stated goal is to eliminate even the possibility of anyone ever making any money whatsoever from software. If you really want to be a waiter so you can give away your software as RMS suggests, more power to you. Personally, I'd rather have the vibrant and profitable software economy back again...
West is all wet (sorry, couldn't resist), but there are other goofy if interesting and somewhat possible explanations for the pyramids, including that they were the giant water pumps that enabled Egypt to be the breadbasket of the ancient world, as we know to be historically true. As usual for wierdo sites, any good stuff here may be cheek-to-jowl with outright trash: http://www.thepump.org/
It's an interesting and creative explanation, anyway, and explains better than anything else I've seen the more unusual design features of some pyramids...
emusic and all other competitors have crap. They have the low-profile, never heard of 'em bands who elsewhere give away their music for free.
emusic doesn't have the high profile 'name' bands that people want...
Oh really? I can only assume you are either musically illiterate, or have never bothered to even look at emusic's site. (I just did, for the first time, and came away reasonably impressed.)
A quick glance at emusic shows serious talent like the following:
Jazz: Thelonius Monk, Ella Fitzgerald, Lois Armstrong, Dave Brubeck, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, etc, etc. - An all-star lineup in anyone's book...
Rock: The Kinks, Eric Clapton, Van Morrison, Creedence Clearwater Revival... granted, not as strong as the Jazz lineup, but hardly no-names, either...
Country: Willie Nelson, Ricky Skaggs, Patsy Cline, Jimmmie Rogers, Merle Haggard, Charlie Daniels Band, etc.
Blues: John Lee Hooker, The Fabuous Thunderbirds, Ray Charles, Little Richard, etc.
And more. I don't like all of the above, but they're all prominient artists in their genres. Looks like a pretty darn good line-up to me, good enough to consider subscribing...
This converter compensates for the fact that the Aussie discs are pressed such that the grooves go in the opposite direction of north american discs that thus they must spin 'backwards.' The converter is basically a mirror-like device that causes the disc to appear in mirror image to the laser, this causing your music to play forward instead of reverse.
Oh, come on, that's just what the converter companies want you to think. Don't let them rip you off - just put the disc in upside-down and it will work fine, especially if you've colored the edge with a green magic marker...;-)
1. 1775 - Invader was the US
2. 1812 - Invader was the US
It's worth pointing out that the US was at war with the British Empire (of which Canada was then a direct part) on both occasions.
The 1812 instance is particularly interesting, since it followed by a year a Canadian action (the sinking of the Caroline) that nearly led to all-out war between Canada and the US.
In fact, it was this event that led the US (under sec'y of State Daniel Webster) to acknowledge (and this establish as a precedent) the validity of the doctrine of anticipitory self-defense, which is the basis of current US actions in Iraq.
Read your history - you'll find it quite interesting, although perhaps not to your political liking...
My Mandrake laptop plugs in quite well. This box has run with Wins configurations, DHCP, and Netware with no problems. It's run on private sector and government networks.
You're having far better luck than I am. I've wasted a dozen hours I couldn't afford trying to get Mandrake 9.1 working on a network on my very well-supported IBM laptop. It installs OK, but absolutely refuses to get correct DNS server information from DHCP. (The DHCP server is a Linux box, BTW.) No Windows client (9x, NT, 2K) has ever had a problem, but Mandrake refuses to let itself talk to the rest of the world, making it totally useless for anything more serious than frozen bubble.
I no longer have time to spend trying to figure out how to fix broken software, so I'm sticking with Windows on the desktop for another year or two. I've even finally bitten the bullet and decided to swallow the distasteful upgrade to XP Pro with its activation hassles.
It's sad really, I've been regularly giving Linux a try on the desktop since 1997, and it's never made the grade even once - that's right, not even one time have I had any Linux distro I've tried flawlessly install and allow access to the network. (Over the years, I've tried Caldera, Debian, Corel, Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, Turbo, etc., even spending hundreds of dollars for official boxed copies in the unlikely event this would improve my chances, but no dice - I was ripped every time, although Caldera came very close to being usable.)
This is pretty basic stuff, and I'm a 20-year Unix veteran, so I'm pretty capable, but I also have better things to do than chase endless bugs and misconfigurations in flaky distros - bugs that should have been fixed long before the software shipped. It really is sad, but even today, Linux is still not up to snuff as a desktop, which is why it will have to remain confined to server duty for another year or two - until someone finally builds a distro that *does* work. (Quite oddly, Knoppix comes closer than anything else to actually delivering, but it is far too slow and constrained to be a real option. Perhaps Klaus should do a regular distro...)
It'll be great when everything uses SVG icons which are rendered at the size you choose and at the right resolution for the display, but that day is a way off yet.
That'll be about the Twelfth of Never. SVG would be great, but it has gained exactly zero traction. The only browser with native support is Amaya, which is not a browser but a dancing bear technology demo. IE requires the ghastly Adobe SVG plug-in, and the MOzilla SVG project is hopelessly moribund. Sadly, SVG is DEAD for now, and will remain that way until it is supported by a major browser, and may remain ded forever if MS doesn't support it in IEng, as seems likely...
Maybe someone who knows better can explain exactly what rsync is and how it differs from unison. Regardless, the original question dealt more with networking protocols than syncronization.
The biggest difference is that Unison is a bi-directional sync, while rsync is one-way. If you'd read the Unison Home Page, you might see that it's very clearly spelled out there. (There's a decent overview on that page, and the gory details are all in the docs, if you'd bother to read them...
If you need a syncrhonizer, Unison is among the best options out there. If you need real file sharing, though, it's not the right solution, so go get a real distributed/network file system.
"Please think of the children" is the next-to-last refuge of a scoundrel. It's used by someone who can't logically defend their position, so they instead make it appear that their opponents are attacking children.
No. In the case of child pornography, there has been an actual attack on children, one that has even been documented as part of the process. To pretend that such abuse is not evil is just asinine...
No it's not. He'll get the patent. Nobody doesn't get a patent. "Patent pending" just means "waiting for the rubber stamp." As long as you pay the filing fee, you'll get the patent. Even if it an unpatentable type of creation, even if it's already been done, even if it's already been patented, and even if it violates the laws of thermodynamics.
This is both flamebait, and egregiously WRONG. You've obviously never TRIED to get a patent. Despite waht people here seem to think, the Patent examiners do a fairly thorough job at looking for things that could make a patent application invalid. How good? True example: A few years ago, my Dad filed a patent on a medical device. Although completely new, with no actual prior art anywhere, it did include an *illustration* that looked slightly like the illustration in a Russian patent. The USPTO rejected the application based *only* on this similarity. It was up to my Dad to pay a translator to find out that the Russian patent wasn't even remotely related, and then resubmit everythign through several other challenges before the patent finally issued.
Anyone who thinks the USPTO isn't doing its job has NOT ever actually tried to get a patent. Sure there are the occasional goofy ones (there's no rule against patenting a LED-illuminated bra with a built-in cleavage-enhancing Diesel generator power supply), but by and large, if a patent gets issued, it's likely valid.
(I just hope we get to see thousands of new software patents issue over the next yearor two to reinvigorate the tech economy!)
Given all that, who are the poor sods downloading and installing Netscape?? I guess they have enough knowledge of computers to be able to install an alternative to IE, but not enough to be able to know about Mozilla? Can there really be more than a handfull of these people, and can't they be rescued and re-educated?
Actually, many of us that prefere Netscape to Mozilla are *well* aware of the differences, and value and appriciate those differences. We are most certainly NOT in need of either "rescue" or "reeducation". We run the stable version!
As I've mentioned before, just having bookmarks available in the Netscape sidebar is enough reason to choose it. It's easy to strip out AIM and the like - takes under a minute, and I bet even most 133t hax0rs here on/. could handle it.
Further, Netscape is considerably more stable than Mozilla (especially on Windows, which is the preferred desktop even for most people here (ask Taco for his logs...)) Mozilla is (and is intended as) a development platform - it's good at that. From what I've seen, the Mozilla releases recieve far less testing and bug-fixing than Netscape performs in their "equivalents". This testing is the reason Netscape releases typically lag their Mozilla counterparts by a fair margin - we got lucky this time and Mozilla 1.4 and Netscape 7.1 are out almost simultaneously only because the Mozilla folks declared RC3 to be v1.4.
In addition there are other good resons to prefer Netscape: The Developer Pack alone is a great reason. If you're doing web page development and taking advantage of JavaScript the way you should, you *need* Venkman and the rest - these are serioous power tools.
If you are using the DOM (and if not, you darn sure should be) you'll find the DOM inspector handy, too.
For those that think JavaScript is a toy language and not suitable for anything real, have a look again - a lot has changed in the past few years, and pure JavaScript is now even the best alternative to SVG, since that is a great idea, but not supported in any mainstream browser, unlike Javascript. Like it or not, JavaScript is the lingua franca of the web, and Netscape does it best.
Finally, even those that like Mozilla should support Netscape by recommending it to less tech-savvy friends. NOt only is it more stable than Mozilla, but doing so supports Netscape, the company whose money is behind over 90% of the commited changes to the Mozilla code base. I view using Netscape as something akin to buying boxed copies of Red Hat or Mandrake - I don't have to, but it's an important show of support. I'm continually amazed at the number of people here on/. willing to spew vitriol at AOl, but claim to love Mozilla. The simple fact is that Mozilla would have died several years ago without Netscape's very substantial commitment of time, money, and most importantly, programmer resources. I thank Netscape for paying those programmers good salaries, rather than making them wait tables for tips as in Richard Stallman's infamous quote: "Programmers should work as waiters so they can give their code away". I for one hope to never have to run code that is developed by an oppressed waiter who ought to have a real job writing code.
Althogether, there are plenty of good reasons to prefer Netscape to Mozilla, and I for one, am not eager to have unstable Mozilla software destroy valuable personal data like e-mails and bookmarks files, somethign that has happened to me several times with various Mozilla releases, but never with any Netscape release. If you want to live on the bleeding edge, fine, but it's irresponsible to encourage others to do likewise, and rude and insulting to assume anyone that prefers a stable browsing environment lacks common sense.
Where IE wins is things like java enabled by default, but Mozilla is a better browser, and I'd hazard the opinion that it's better by a long shot.
You can avoid things like the Java problem by choosing Netscape instead of Mozilla. It supports the company responsible for 90+% of Mozilla development, comes with Java, and has a number of extra features - just having the sidebar available for bookmarks is enough reason to prefer Netscape over Mozilla.
I really don't use any other extra fetures of Netscape, and in fact turn off AIM and the like because I never use chat and the like. It takes all of 60 seconds from the Edit/Preferences Menu, and you're never bothered by the AOL-isms again...
I've tried both Netscape and Mozilla, and on my two primary desktop machines (Win98Se and Win2000Pro - I refuse to wear the Linux-on-the-desktop hair shirt, deal with it), I find Netscape the be the best, fastest, and most stable browser available, and with the addition of the Tabbed Browser Extensions, the best browsing environment available on any platform today. Mozilla's not bad, but there's a reason Netscape's releases lag, and it has a LOT to do with stability and quality, not just a few AOL features grafted on. That the Netscape releases get more testing is evident if you compare like-for-like versions with Mozilla. No slam on Mozilla, it's an excellent browser, but especially if you're using Windows, you owe it to yourself to check out Netscape as an alternative.
Here are my two suggestions, for what they're worth:
1) This is not the place to do homework on this issue. a great place to get started is to find somewhere that has the last year or two's back issues of Communications Convergence or similar trade magazines. That one in particular might be good - I don't know how they are now that they're part of CMP, but the magazine used to be called Teleconnect and was edited by a crusty old guy named Harry Newton. I've never seen more honest reviews and buyer's guide info anywhere than I did in Teleconnect. I haven't done this is years, let's hope that part stuck.
2) It's *really* important to learn enough to understand what's going on here: Telecom isn't hard, but it's *very* different from what you're used to from a networking point of view, and the business is filled with sharks - if there's the first hint you don't know what you're doing, they'll take you to the cleaners. (For instance, if you somehow let it slip that you don't know whether you want a loop-start or ground-start circuit, or worse, even what that means...)
Finally, IP phones and VoIP can be a good way to go, but realize the technology is young, and you may spend more for future flexibility. Some day, nearly all wired phones will be IP-based, but that's a long time, and there may be no compelling reason to jump now. If you are interested in looking that way, you might want to consider Mitel's stuff, which I've heard (only) integrates nicely with networks, including thier SME server, which is the old e-smith Linux distro.
Good luck, and please post you decision here along with what you learned for future reference...
Centrex has it's flaws, but it can be a very good choice for some small businesses. The services and prices vary considerably between ohone companies and markets - It's a great deal some places, and a horrible one in others.
Caveat Emptor, but it's an option well worth inviting a telco rep over for a meeting about. If I were your boss, I wouldn't think you'd done your homework if you hadn't checked out Centrex as an option - it's really just outsourcing your phone system to the LEC. If you look at it and make the decision from that perspective, you'll be in good shape, whichever option you choose.
OK, all you lamers who have never actually typed to a computer on a Model 33 Teletype can go home now. (Extra points for actually having used one with a puched paper tape reader/punch.)
And no, I'm not all *that* old (although at 41, I'm beginning to feel like an old-timer in this crowd.)
The sad thing is, I last used equipment like that in about 1990, when it was still pretty commonly used for interfacing to numerical control machinery. I just about choked when I found out the NC department paid FIVE THOUSAND dollars for a new high-speed paper tape punch. They just about choked when I showed them I could use an ordinary PC and Xmodem or Kermit to do the same thing, and avoid the hassles of physically loading and storing the expensive reels of mylar tape required by the high-speed readers. (Paper was too fragile to avoid inevitable shredding at those speeds...)
Thanks guys, now I feel *really* old... Please somebody that worked with Compucolor, Digital Group, or SWTPC computers chime in so I don't feel so old - I just drooled over those in the magazines, since I couldn't convince Dad that having a computer would be worth spending hundreds of dollars on. Now he's got a new Jaguar PowerMac, and I'm still using this crappy Intel stuff...:-)
The "[publicdom (the grammar fairy just died)]" isn't for the creator of the new work, [it] is for the users to not owe you a damned thing in return.
ROTFLMAO... with visions of the tiny and horribly maimed corpse of the former grammar fairy resting in the midst of a puddle of gore labelled "publicdom"...
It's worth noting that there is considerable disagreement and argument about this point... A very large portion of the world's population, and a not insignificant fraction of scientists and engineers believe life does indeed show obvious and manifold evidence of intelligent and thoughtful design.
Even without bringing religious beliefs and worldviews into the mix, there are very good scientific reasons to question your assertion.
Consider the cost of licensing a proprietary OS and porting all your code to it. Weigh that against the cost of putting all the source code on the web.
Now contrast that with the cost of licensing a truly free OS like one of the BSDs that avoids the entire ugly problem. You've now go the best of both worlds. As a practical matter, any substantial proprietary changes to the BSDs tend to turn up in the codebase sooner or later, since the cost and complexity of maintaining them in parallel becomes too great. More info can be found at Why you should use a BSD-style license.
Really, BSD-style licenses are the only sane option for embedded developers, especially with the legal cloud that will surround Linux for the next several years due to the SCO suit, which is likely only the first of many. (I'm pretty darn sure Sun could show hundreds of examples of outright code theft in Linux if it had a mind to.)
BSD offers all the benefits, and none of the downside, especially since it's already been through the legal meat-grinder and come out with an official stamp of approval that it does NOT contain any purloined code. That's worth what - maybe a billion dollars?
Those of us who are serious hackers of horsepower as well as MIPS have a particular fondness for the combination of nitrous oxide and burning rubber.:-)
I love that Yamaha commercial set to "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes", with the "crying" bikers. Or, to ripp off Apocalyse Now: "I love the smell of burning Goodyears/Yokos/Hoosiers in the morning - it smells like... Victory!"
Or, if you use the toolbar (I know, it's only available to a few OS/browser combos) just type your search terms in and click the "search this site" button while you're on a/. page
Actually, the original version of the Google toolbar was a set of JavaScript links for use with Netscape. The IE-specific version came out later. The originals can be used with any JavaScript compatible browser. Here they are, the original and a few handy modifications, for those that don't know the trick. Add these to your Personal Toolbar folder in Netscape/Mozilla for easy access to useful stuff. Also, note that you can now search by selecting text in the page and pressing the script link, or just pressing the script link and then filling in the dialog box. Really handy. Paste each one in as all one line, of course, since/. and/or your browser will certainly make them multiple lines unless you have the monitor I wish I had.
Note: Something here on/. (at least in preview mode) is inserting extra spaces in the URLs below (they are NOT there in what I submit!) Cut out spaces that look like they don't belong and it should work.
Google:
javascript:q=document.getSelection();for(i=0;i<fra mes.length;i++){q=frames[i].document.getSelection( );if(q)break;}if(!q)void(q=prompt('Enter text to search using Google. You can also highlight a word on this web page before clicking Google Search.',''));if(q)location.href='http://www.googl e.com/search?client=googlet&q='+escape(q)
Modified version for Dictionary.com:
javascript:q=document.getSelection();for(i=0;i<fra mes.length;i++){q=frames[i].document.getSelection( );if(q)break;}if(!q)void(q=prompt('Enter text to lookup using Dictionary.com. You can also highlight a word on this web page before clicking Dictionary Search.',''));if(q)location.href='http://www.dicti onary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term='+escape(q)
Yet another modified version that lets you jump directly to a URL that is just text, not a link, on the page:
javascript:q=document.getSelection();for(i=0;i<fra mes.length;i++){q=frames[i].document.getSelection( );if(q)break;}if(!q)void(q=prompt('Enter or Select URL.',''));if(q)location.href='http://'+(q)
According to the IETF rules the authoritative version is the unreadable plaintext version.
And just what is "unreadable" about plain text files? Come on, you're being a style elitist. The content of an RFC is text, and there is absolutely no reason to format the text to death with various proprietary and incompatible formatting methods.
Plain text may not be as pretty, but it's eminently readable, and can be used absolutely everywhere. It's also trivially easy to turn in to the proprietary dog's breakfast of your choosing. Unlike even HTML, it will be just as readable and usable in another 20 years as it is today. The IETF correctly recognizes that hte value is in the *content* not the *formatting* of such docuemnts. Long live plain text!
Actually, in many ways, the Gopher protocol is a far better way to deliver HTML than HTTP.
Unfortunately, the idea never caught on, mostly becasue most browsers don't leverage or support the features of Gopher that would be useful (like, for instance, being able to tell how big something is *before* you download it, something that HTTP can't do. Try the "=" command on a Gopher link to see it work, and think how useful that could be on the web.)
The Gopher protocol (as distict from Gopher clients) was probably a far better option than HTTP. Unfortunately, about hte time we had the chance to make the change, the newly formed web was inundated by PC users that had discovered Cello or Mosaic, and we all thought it would be too hard to make the change. In retrospect, it woudl have been far easier then, of course. Oh, well, win some, lose some...
"Deprecate" is often misused, especially by computerish folks, who seem to have given it a meaning similar to "in the process of being obsoleted, so we don't recommend using it anymore".
Plain old "obsoleted" would work, except for those people that insist on always drawing the distinction between something that's already obsolete, and something that's just on death row, but hasn't actually been shot yet. As a practical matter, there's very little difference, although it does correctly connote that twilight zone between support and non-support as you give a concept time to die a natural death before breaking things that rely on it.
Mostly, I find the people that use "deprecated" have vocabulary deficit and thus somehow think that throwing this one around will impress people. It doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
If companies are going to have to deal with defending their use of open source, a time might come when they just don't want to use it anymore, lock it all down, and sue hackers like this under the DMCA.
:-)
Not only that, but perhaps they should sue libelous posters and owners of irresponsible discussion sites for the costs of dealing with false GPL violation allegations.
That, and charge the real and actual cost of sorting out the license issues and providing the source and accompanying documentaiton of appropriate license for each component. This sort of charge is clearly allowed by the GPL, and could easily run into thousaands of dollars as a real and actual expense, chargeable to anyone acting as irresponsibly as the GPL crowd is here. There is no requirement that the cost to provide source be low, just that it cannot exceed the actual cost to provide it. If that cost were accurately accounted for, it would be quite expensive, particularly when a company is under GPL attack, and such things wind up tying up a half dozen people in meetings for a solid week to ensure that the right thing gets done to avoid further harassment.
Right now, the GPL is a one-way bludgeon against any company unwise enough to use GPL'ed code in a product. As this debacle proves, even if they do *nothing* wrong, the GPL bigots can still cost such a company serious money in lost productivity and PR damage (not to mention legal opinions) just by raising a bogus claim of "GPL Violation!" someplace like Slashdot, which seems to think itself immune from the responsibilities (for libel and the like) that other publishers must assume. The New York Times is (justifiably) excoriated for Jayson Blair's fabrications, and gets held to account and even apologizes. Why don't we ever see (or perhaps even expect?) similar accountability in webspace?
"One perfect example of this is Zebra, the advanced dynamic routing software package. By opening the firmware file directly, as well as by making queries through the makeshift ping interface mentioned earlier, we noticed that the zebra running on the WRT54G doesn't use the standard configuration file locations. This means that it must certainly be a modified binary."
:-)
We can only hope that Linksys prosecutes this jerk under the DMCA for illegal code tampering.
It's pretty clear now that there's no GPL violation here at all, and this fellow was just trying to smear Linksys. It's exactly this sort of bahaviour among GPL zealots that makes me refuse to use any GPL code in any commercial context, ever. Even if you do absolutely *nothing* wrong, a single accusation like this can cost your company tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, opinions, and lost productivity as your staff tries futilely to engage in damage control. That sort of risk and exposure obliterates any possible savings by using GPL'ed code, so it's far cheaper and safer just to find other alternatives, or if really necessary, re-implement the crucial pieces to avoid any GPL claims on them.
Remember that Stallman and the GPL's stated goal is to eliminate even the possibility of anyone ever making any money whatsoever from software. If you really want to be a waiter so you can give away your software as RMS suggests, more power to you. Personally, I'd rather have the vibrant and profitable software economy back again...
West is all wet (sorry, couldn't resist), but there are other goofy if interesting and somewhat possible explanations for the pyramids, including that they were the giant water pumps that enabled Egypt to be the breadbasket of the ancient world, as we know to be historically true. As usual for wierdo sites, any good stuff here may be cheek-to-jowl with outright trash: http://www.thepump.org/
It's an interesting and creative explanation, anyway, and explains better than anything else I've seen the more unusual design features of some pyramids...
emusic and all other competitors have crap. They have the low-profile, never heard of 'em bands who elsewhere give away their music for free.
emusic doesn't have the high profile 'name' bands that people want...
Oh really? I can only assume you are either musically illiterate, or have never bothered to even look at emusic's site. (I just did, for the first time, and came away reasonably impressed.)
A quick glance at emusic shows serious talent like the following:
Jazz:
Thelonius Monk, Ella Fitzgerald, Lois Armstrong, Dave Brubeck, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, etc, etc. - An all-star lineup in anyone's book...
Rock:
The Kinks, Eric Clapton, Van Morrison, Creedence Clearwater Revival... granted, not as strong as the Jazz lineup, but hardly no-names, either...
Country:
Willie Nelson, Ricky Skaggs, Patsy Cline, Jimmmie Rogers, Merle Haggard, Charlie Daniels Band, etc.
Blues: John Lee Hooker, The Fabuous Thunderbirds, Ray Charles, Little Richard, etc.
And more. I don't like all of the above, but they're all prominient artists in their genres. Looks like a pretty darn good line-up to me, good enough to consider subscribing...
This converter compensates for the fact that the Aussie discs are pressed such that the grooves go in the opposite direction of north american discs that thus they must spin 'backwards.' The converter is basically a mirror-like device that causes the disc to appear in mirror image to the laser, this causing your music to play forward instead of reverse.
;-)
Oh, come on, that's just what the converter companies want you to think. Don't let them rip you off - just put the disc in upside-down and it will work fine, especially if you've colored the edge with a green magic marker...
Well, Canada has been invaded twice:
1. 1775 - Invader was the US
2. 1812 - Invader was the US
It's worth pointing out that the US was at war with the British Empire (of which Canada was then a direct part) on both occasions.
The 1812 instance is particularly interesting, since it followed by a year a Canadian action (the sinking of the Caroline) that nearly led to all-out war between Canada and the US.
In fact, it was this event that led the US (under sec'y of State Daniel Webster) to acknowledge (and this establish as a precedent) the validity of the doctrine of anticipitory self-defense, which is the basis of current US actions in Iraq.
Read your history - you'll find it quite interesting, although perhaps not to your political liking...
My Mandrake laptop plugs in quite well. This box has run with Wins configurations, DHCP, and Netware with no problems. It's run on private sector and government networks.
You're having far better luck than I am. I've wasted a dozen hours I couldn't afford trying to get Mandrake 9.1 working on a network on my very well-supported IBM laptop. It installs OK, but absolutely refuses to get correct DNS server information from DHCP. (The DHCP server is a Linux box, BTW.) No Windows client (9x, NT, 2K) has ever had a problem, but Mandrake refuses to let itself talk to the rest of the world, making it totally useless for anything more serious than frozen bubble.
I no longer have time to spend trying to figure out how to fix broken software, so I'm sticking with Windows on the desktop for another year or two. I've even finally bitten the bullet and decided to swallow the distasteful upgrade to XP Pro with its activation hassles.
It's sad really, I've been regularly giving Linux a try on the desktop since 1997, and it's never made the grade even once - that's right, not even one time have I had any Linux distro I've tried flawlessly install and allow access to the network. (Over the years, I've tried Caldera, Debian, Corel, Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, Turbo, etc., even spending hundreds of dollars for official boxed copies in the unlikely event this would improve my chances, but no dice - I was ripped every time, although Caldera came very close to being usable.)
This is pretty basic stuff, and I'm a 20-year Unix veteran, so I'm pretty capable, but I also have better things to do than chase endless bugs and misconfigurations in flaky distros - bugs that should have been fixed long before the software shipped. It really is sad, but even today, Linux is still not up to snuff as a desktop, which is why it will have to remain confined to server duty for another year or two - until someone finally builds a distro that *does* work. (Quite oddly, Knoppix comes closer than anything else to actually delivering, but it is far too slow and constrained to be a real option. Perhaps Klaus should do a regular distro...)
It'll be great when everything uses SVG icons which are rendered at the size you choose and at the right resolution for the display, but that day is a way off yet.
That'll be about the Twelfth of Never. SVG would be great, but it has gained exactly zero traction. The only browser with native support is Amaya, which is not a browser but a dancing bear technology demo. IE requires the ghastly Adobe SVG plug-in, and the MOzilla SVG project is hopelessly moribund. Sadly, SVG is DEAD for now, and will remain that way until it is supported by a major browser, and may remain ded forever if MS doesn't support it in IEng, as seems likely...
Maybe someone who knows better can explain exactly what rsync is and how it differs from unison. Regardless, the original question dealt more with networking protocols than syncronization.
The biggest difference is that Unison is a bi-directional sync, while rsync is one-way. If you'd read the Unison Home Page, you might see that it's very clearly spelled out there. (There's a decent overview on that page, and the gory details are all in the docs, if you'd bother to read them...
If you need a syncrhonizer, Unison is among the best options out there. If you need real file sharing, though, it's not the right solution, so go get a real distributed/network file system.
"Please think of the children" is the next-to-last refuge of a scoundrel. It's used by someone who can't logically defend their position, so they instead make it appear that their opponents are attacking children.
No. In the case of child pornography, there has been an actual attack on children, one that has even been documented as part of the process. To pretend that such abuse is not evil is just asinine...
No it's not. He'll get the patent. Nobody doesn't get a patent. "Patent pending" just means "waiting for the rubber stamp." As long as you pay the filing fee, you'll get the patent. Even if it an unpatentable type of creation, even if it's already been done, even if it's already been patented, and even if it violates the laws of thermodynamics.
This is both flamebait, and egregiously WRONG. You've obviously never TRIED to get a patent. Despite waht people here seem to think, the Patent examiners do a fairly thorough job at looking for things that could make a patent application invalid. How good? True example: A few years ago, my Dad filed a patent on a medical device. Although completely new, with no actual prior art anywhere, it did include an *illustration* that looked slightly like the illustration in a Russian patent. The USPTO rejected the application based *only* on this similarity. It was up to my Dad to pay a translator to find out that the Russian patent wasn't even remotely related, and then resubmit everythign through several other challenges before the patent finally issued.
Anyone who thinks the USPTO isn't doing its job has NOT ever actually tried to get a patent. Sure there are the occasional goofy ones (there's no rule against patenting a LED-illuminated bra with a built-in cleavage-enhancing Diesel generator power supply), but by and large, if a patent gets issued, it's likely valid.
(I just hope we get to see thousands of new software patents issue over the next yearor two to reinvigorate the tech economy!)
Given all that, who are the poor sods downloading and installing Netscape?? I guess they have enough knowledge of computers to be able to install an alternative to IE, but not enough to be able to know about Mozilla? Can there really be more than a handfull of these people, and can't they be rescued and re-educated?
/. could handle it.
/. willing to spew vitriol at AOl, but claim to love Mozilla. The simple fact is that Mozilla would have died several years ago without Netscape's very substantial commitment of time, money, and most importantly, programmer resources. I thank Netscape for paying those programmers good salaries, rather than making them wait tables for tips as in Richard Stallman's infamous quote: "Programmers should work as waiters so they can give their code away". I for one hope to never have to run code that is developed by an oppressed waiter who ought to have a real job writing code.
Actually, many of us that prefere Netscape to Mozilla are *well* aware of the differences, and value and appriciate those differences. We are most certainly NOT in need of either "rescue" or "reeducation". We run the stable version!
As I've mentioned before, just having bookmarks available in the Netscape sidebar is enough reason to choose it. It's easy to strip out AIM and the like - takes under a minute, and I bet even most 133t hax0rs here on
Further, Netscape is considerably more stable than Mozilla (especially on Windows, which is the preferred desktop even for most people here (ask Taco for his logs...)) Mozilla is (and is intended as) a development platform - it's good at that. From what I've seen, the Mozilla releases recieve far less testing and bug-fixing than Netscape performs in their "equivalents". This testing is the reason Netscape releases typically lag their Mozilla counterparts by a fair margin - we got lucky this time and Mozilla 1.4 and Netscape 7.1 are out almost simultaneously only because the Mozilla folks declared RC3 to be v1.4.
In addition there are other good resons to prefer Netscape: The Developer Pack alone is a great reason. If you're doing web page development and taking advantage of JavaScript the way you should, you *need* Venkman and the rest - these are serioous power tools.
If you are using the DOM (and if not, you darn sure should be) you'll find the DOM inspector handy, too.
For those that think JavaScript is a toy language and not suitable for anything real, have a look again - a lot has changed in the past few years, and pure JavaScript is now even the best alternative to SVG, since that is a great idea, but not supported in any mainstream browser, unlike Javascript. Like it or not, JavaScript is the lingua franca of the web, and Netscape does it best.
Finally, even those that like Mozilla should support Netscape by recommending it to less tech-savvy friends. NOt only is it more stable than Mozilla, but doing so supports Netscape, the company whose money is behind over 90% of the commited changes to the Mozilla code base. I view using Netscape as something akin to buying boxed copies of Red Hat or Mandrake - I don't have to, but it's an important show of support. I'm continually amazed at the number of people here on
Althogether, there are plenty of good reasons to prefer Netscape to Mozilla, and I for one, am not eager to have unstable Mozilla software destroy valuable personal data like e-mails and bookmarks files, somethign that has happened to me several times with various Mozilla releases, but never with any Netscape release. If you want to live on the bleeding edge, fine, but it's irresponsible to encourage others to do likewise, and rude and insulting to assume anyone that prefers a stable browsing environment lacks common sense.
Where IE wins is things like java enabled by default, but Mozilla is a better browser, and I'd hazard the opinion that it's better by a long shot.
You can avoid things like the Java problem by choosing Netscape instead of Mozilla. It supports the company responsible for 90+% of Mozilla development, comes with Java, and has a number of extra features - just having the sidebar available for bookmarks is enough reason to prefer Netscape over Mozilla.
I really don't use any other extra fetures of Netscape, and in fact turn off AIM and the like because I never use chat and the like. It takes all of 60 seconds from the Edit/Preferences Menu, and you're never bothered by the AOL-isms again...
I've tried both Netscape and Mozilla, and on my two primary desktop machines (Win98Se and Win2000Pro - I refuse to wear the Linux-on-the-desktop hair shirt, deal with it), I find Netscape the be the best, fastest, and most stable browser available, and with the addition of the Tabbed Browser Extensions, the best browsing environment available on any platform today. Mozilla's not bad, but there's a reason Netscape's releases lag, and it has a LOT to do with stability and quality, not just a few AOL features grafted on. That the Netscape releases get more testing is evident if you compare like-for-like versions with Mozilla. No slam on Mozilla, it's an excellent browser, but especially if you're using Windows, you owe it to yourself to check out Netscape as an alternative.
Here are my two suggestions, for what they're worth:
1) This is not the place to do homework on this issue. a great place to get started is to find somewhere that has the last year or two's back issues of Communications Convergence or similar trade magazines. That one in particular might be good - I don't know how they are now that they're part of CMP, but the magazine used to be called Teleconnect and was edited by a crusty old guy named Harry Newton. I've never seen more honest reviews and buyer's guide info anywhere than I did in Teleconnect. I haven't done this is years, let's hope that part stuck.
2) It's *really* important to learn enough to understand what's going on here: Telecom isn't hard, but it's *very* different from what you're used to from a networking point of view, and the business is filled with sharks - if there's the first hint you don't know what you're doing, they'll take you to the cleaners. (For instance, if you somehow let it slip that you don't know whether you want a loop-start or ground-start circuit, or worse, even what that means...)
Finally, IP phones and VoIP can be a good way to go, but realize the technology is young, and you may spend more for future flexibility. Some day, nearly all wired phones will be IP-based, but that's a long time, and there may be no compelling reason to jump now. If you are interested in looking that way, you might want to consider Mitel's stuff, which I've heard (only) integrates nicely with networks, including thier SME server, which is the old e-smith Linux distro.
Good luck, and please post you decision here along with what you learned for future reference...
Centrex has it's flaws, but it can be a very good choice for some small businesses. The services and prices vary considerably between ohone companies and markets - It's a great deal some places, and a horrible one in others.
Caveat Emptor, but it's an option well worth inviting a telco rep over for a meeting about. If I were your boss, I wouldn't think you'd done your homework if you hadn't checked out Centrex as an option - it's really just outsourcing your phone system to the LEC. If you look at it and make the decision from that perspective, you'll be in good shape, whichever option you choose.
OK, all you lamers who have never actually typed to a computer on a Model 33 Teletype can go home now. (Extra points for actually having used one with a puched paper tape reader/punch.)
:-)
And no, I'm not all *that* old (although at 41, I'm beginning to feel like an old-timer in this crowd.)
The sad thing is, I last used equipment like that in about 1990, when it was still pretty commonly used for interfacing to numerical control machinery. I just about choked when I found out the NC department paid FIVE THOUSAND dollars for a new high-speed paper tape punch. They just about choked when I showed them I could use an ordinary PC and Xmodem or Kermit to do the same thing, and avoid the hassles of physically loading and storing the expensive reels of mylar tape required by the high-speed readers. (Paper was too fragile to avoid inevitable shredding at those speeds...)
Thanks guys, now I feel *really* old... Please somebody that worked with Compucolor, Digital Group, or SWTPC computers chime in so I don't feel so old - I just drooled over those in the magazines, since I couldn't convince Dad that having a computer would be worth spending hundreds of dollars on. Now he's got a new Jaguar PowerMac, and I'm still using this crappy Intel stuff...
The "[publicdom (the grammar fairy just died)]" isn't for the creator of the new work, [it] is for the users to not owe you a damned thing in return.
ROTFLMAO... with visions of the tiny and horribly maimed corpse of the former grammar fairy resting in the midst of a puddle of gore labelled "publicdom"...
there are random mutations every time a cell divides, it's called evolution.
Hmm, although no doubt politically correct in your domain of study, that's not an assertion that's borne out by real-life DNA studies. In fact, the wole thing appears to be quite an ugly mess, causing the creation of ever-more-unlikely orthodoxy in order to maintain the ridiculous claims of evolution...
Also, don't forget Nature is not purposeful.
It's worth noting that there is considerable disagreement and argument about this point... A very large portion of the world's population, and a not insignificant fraction of scientists and engineers believe life does indeed show obvious and manifold evidence of intelligent and thoughtful design.
Even without bringing religious beliefs and worldviews into the mix, there are very good scientific reasons to question your assertion.
Consider the cost of licensing a proprietary OS and porting all your code to it. Weigh that against the cost of putting all the source code on the web.
Now contrast that with the cost of licensing a truly free OS like one of the BSDs that avoids the entire ugly problem. You've now go the best of both worlds. As a practical matter, any substantial proprietary changes to the BSDs tend to turn up in the codebase sooner or later, since the cost and complexity of maintaining them in parallel becomes too great. More info can be found at
Why you should use a BSD-style license.
Really, BSD-style licenses are the only sane option for embedded developers, especially with the legal cloud that will surround Linux for the next several years due to the SCO suit, which is likely only the first of many. (I'm pretty darn sure Sun could show hundreds of examples of outright code theft in Linux if it had a mind to.)
BSD offers all the benefits, and none of the downside, especially since it's already been through the legal meat-grinder and come out with an official stamp of approval that it does NOT contain any purloined code. That's worth what - maybe a billion dollars?
The stuff they put in solid rockets to keep them burning, you don't want to be inhaling that stuff.
:-)
Whereas nitrous oxide and burnin' rubber, well, shucks, that's better'n air!
Those of us who are serious hackers of horsepower as well as MIPS have a particular fondness for the combination of nitrous oxide and burning rubber.
I love that Yamaha commercial set to "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes", with the "crying" bikers. Or, to ripp off Apocalyse Now: "I love the smell of burning Goodyears/Yokos/Hoosiers in the morning - it smells like... Victory!"
Actually, the original version of the Google toolbar was a set of JavaScript links for use with Netscape. The IE-specific version came out later. The originals can be used with any JavaScript compatible browser. Here they are, the original and a few handy modifications, for those that don't know the trick. Add these to your Personal Toolbar folder in Netscape/Mozilla for easy access to useful stuff. Also, note that you can now search by selecting text in the page and pressing the script link, or just pressing the script link and then filling in the dialog box. Really handy. Paste each one in as all one line, of course, since
Note: Something here on
Google:Modified version for Dictionary.com:Yet another modified version that lets you jump directly to a URL that is just text, not a link, on the page:
According to the IETF rules the authoritative version is the unreadable plaintext version.
And just what is "unreadable" about plain text files? Come on, you're being a style elitist. The content of an RFC is text, and there is absolutely no reason to format the text to death with various proprietary and incompatible formatting methods.
Plain text may not be as pretty, but it's eminently readable, and can be used absolutely everywhere. It's also trivially easy to turn in to the proprietary dog's breakfast of your choosing. Unlike even HTML, it will be just as readable and usable in another 20 years as it is today. The IETF correctly recognizes that hte value is in the *content* not the *formatting* of such docuemnts. Long live plain text!
Actually, in many ways, the Gopher protocol is a far better way to deliver HTML than HTTP.
Unfortunately, the idea never caught on, mostly becasue most browsers don't leverage or support the features of Gopher that would be useful (like, for instance, being able to tell how big something is *before* you download it, something that HTTP can't do. Try the "=" command on a Gopher link to see it work, and think how useful that could be on the web.)
The Gopher protocol (as distict from Gopher clients) was probably a far better option than HTTP. Unfortunately, about hte time we had the chance to make the change, the newly formed web was inundated by PC users that had discovered Cello or Mosaic, and we all thought it would be too hard to make the change. In retrospect, it woudl have been far easier then, of course. Oh, well, win some, lose some...
"Deprecate" is often misused, especially by computerish folks, who seem to have given it a meaning similar to "in the process of being obsoleted, so we don't recommend using it anymore".
Plain old "obsoleted" would work, except for those people that insist on always drawing the distinction between something that's already obsolete, and something that's just on death row, but hasn't actually been shot yet. As a practical matter, there's very little difference, although it does correctly connote that twilight zone between support and non-support as you give a concept time to die a natural death before breaking things that rely on it.
Mostly, I find the people that use "deprecated" have vocabulary deficit and thus somehow think that throwing this one around will impress people. It doesn't.