I have Vonage, and we most certainly do have 911 service. In the case of Vonage, I can directly tell them the EXACT address that the phone is currently located at.
This is important to me, since I have a California area code and billing address, but the phone is in Washington right now.
There are any number of fairly cheap USB audio options that might do what you want.
I use a USB SoundBlaster which has optical in and out on it. It is recognized as a generic USB audio device in every machine I've plugged it into, so I would be surprised if it didn't work on a Mac.
I'm not in disagreement over your basic premis, but making stuff up does not help your credibility.
Can you name a SINGLE McDonalds product in which the packaging weighs more then the food? Unless the wrapper for a quarter pounder in your country is made from spent uranium...I didn't think so.
I for one can vouch for GigaFast's (poor) product quality. I had one of their 8-port 10/100 switches. It failed after less then a year of normal use under my desk.
I thought about sending it back, but since I would just get another one in exchange, it didn't seem worth paying the S&H.
If they can't even make a simple product like this that is reliable, it really says a lot about the company.
That idea is pure genius. Imagine if it came with half a season of the Soprano's in HD already. I think the uptake on HBO subscriptions would be incredible.
My parents have this exact SA unit, with Cox service, and their experience has been vastly different.
The only real issue with it they have left is recording the Dolby Digital track on an HD feed will result in choppy audio. This is supposed to be fixed in the upcoming firmware. In the meanwhile, they record the 2-channel audio with their DVR events. Boo-hoo.
Having dealt with both Cox and T-W at various times, I can pinpoint exactly where the problem is, and it aint the technology. Hint: The problem has the initials T and W.
"how much would a company pay".... "access all their files and applications from any computer aroun d the world"
While useful to many, I'm sure, I think more of what a company would pay to *not* have their files and applications downloaded from any computer around the world.
According to the documentation provided, this 'new version' was also distributed to 'registered users only' for a period of time, although that is claimed to have been 'short'. He even admitted to that, and tried to justify it with some crap about how it was only to registered users.
That is a dead giveaway to be bound under the GPL right there, the fact he tries to claim it "doesn't count" as it was only to 'registered users' only undermines his own ignorance.
The way I see this, the already GPL software in question was most definately and intentionally distributed in some capacity, both by the programmer (as a contractor to his client, which is not covered as an 'exception') and by this asshat to whomever 'qualified' to be a 'registered user'. In either case, this is distribution and invokes the GPL's full wrath.
As far as the 'validity' of the GPL FAQ, while I'm sure it is not error-free, it comes from the same group of legal scholars (and their assistants) that gave us the GPL. While I am sure not perfect, they know it better then any of us. I readily trust their interpretation better then anybody except Moglen's.
I find it impossible to believe that any court, anywhere, is going to see an exceedingly minor modification to an existing source code file as anything but being a derivative. This could never be argued to be anything except a direct modification to an existing work, which by definition, almost guarantees it's place as a derivative.
Sorry for the 'author' crack at the end, I was expecting a troll, not somebody who was going to respond in relevence.
The GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed... to all third parties." Who are these third parties?
Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version.
The developer in question is not an employee of Furthermore, so this is not "distribution within a single company" which is explicitly allowed. If anything, it was a distribution between a contractor/contractee, which further in the GPL FAQ you will see is considered distribution.
This does not even bring into account the fact that these changes could easily qualify as a derrivitive work, which would make this seemingly simple case all that much simpler.
The author doesn't seem to understand how the GPL works.
By author, I would assume you mean yourself.
Perhaps Furthermore has a case, but it would be a contract dispute with the developer he hired.
Compared especially to the very early 486SX chips, You are absolutely right, in many instances the AMD 386DX-40 would either be faster or be a much better value.
However, the later AMD-based 386DX boards that were cheap used surface-mounted CPU's and from an upgrade-sense were foobar. The ones that were socketed could be upgraded to a Cyrix chip that was often a nightmare, between having to use utilities in the autoexec to enable the L1 cache, and having previously stable systems decide they would start locking up at random.
A 486SX-33 on a board with 256KB cache and VL-Bus slots would cream it, though, and had a very sweet upgrade path.
Once AMD had their 486's on the market, a lot of those boxen that didn't get hand-me-down intel DX2's got the (very affordable) AMD DX2-66.
Going that route and buying high-quality motherboards was a major win. They could have had a third round of CPU upgrades, but the price/performance ratio on the Intel 'overdrive' CPU's was just too pathetic.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot has a speck of credibility on anything regarding Mr. Gates?
Wow, that's news to me, and I've been coming here for over five years.
The 'borg' graphic was my first clue that 'credibility' was not one of their goals.
Bullshit.
I have Vonage, and we most certainly do have 911 service. In the case of Vonage, I can directly tell them the EXACT address that the phone is currently located at.
This is important to me, since I have a California area code and billing address, but the phone is in Washington right now.
Let me get this straight, you made final payment *without* getting the source code?
Wow.
There are any number of fairly cheap USB audio options that might do what you want.
I use a USB SoundBlaster which has optical in and out on it. It is recognized as a generic USB audio device in every machine I've plugged it into, so I would be surprised if it didn't work on a Mac.
Bullshit.
I'm not in disagreement over your basic premis, but making stuff up does not help your credibility.
Can you name a SINGLE McDonalds product in which the packaging weighs more then the food? Unless the wrapper for a quarter pounder in your country is made from spent uranium...I didn't think so.
I for one can vouch for GigaFast's (poor) product quality. I had one of their 8-port 10/100 switches. It failed after less then a year of normal use under my desk.
I thought about sending it back, but since I would just get another one in exchange, it didn't seem worth paying the S&H.
If they can't even make a simple product like this that is reliable, it really says a lot about the company.
Install worked great on CherryOS, even on this ancient dual P3 box.
Oh wait, that was a dream, never mind.
YES
Heaven knows something like this wouldn't be useful with, oh, say, netflix :)
Then I shall 0wn you via rconsole
Only in a slashdot medical discussion can crap like this earn a '5'.
Nicotine is a stimulant.
According to WebMD, "Aside from the obvious health risks of cigarettes, nicotine acts as a stimulant and brings on more stress symptoms."
Nicotine is anything but tasteless.
"It is a colorless, transparent, oily liquid, having an acrid odor, and an acrid burning taste. It is intensely poisonous" That is from Websters.
You have a wife cool enough to have gotten a gmail invite? Do you really want an excuse to leave?
Grunt
Moan
YEEEEEEEES
What was that, again?
You don't honestly think they are going to be delivered with genitals intact do you????
(roll to sound of manaical laughter)
That idea is pure genius. Imagine if it came with half a season of the Soprano's in HD already. I think the uptake on HBO subscriptions would be incredible.
That reminds me....
Q: How many people with ADD does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: LET'S GO FLY KITES!
and the rest will say, "I have AOL 9.0, and I bet this 'FireFox' contraption isn't even 'optimized'"
XM already has constantly repeating (and commercial free) traffic and weather stations for the larger metro areas.
s p?hood=traffic/
If you are someplace small enough not to be represented, you probably don't need a traffic report anyways!
http://www.xmradio.com/programming/neighborhood.j
My parents have this exact SA unit, with Cox service, and their experience has been vastly different.
The only real issue with it they have left is recording the Dolby Digital track on an HD feed will result in choppy audio. This is supposed to be fixed in the upcoming firmware. In the meanwhile, they record the 2-channel audio with their DVR events. Boo-hoo.
Having dealt with both Cox and T-W at various times, I can pinpoint exactly where the problem is, and it aint the technology. Hint: The problem has the initials T and W.
Opie and Anthony
"how much would a company pay" .... "access all their files and applications from any computer aroun d the world"
While useful to many, I'm sure, I think more of what a company would pay to *not* have their files and applications downloaded from any computer around the world.
Either that or it will kill you.
/me says that from Central Washington, with plenty of fear of my own.
According to the documentation provided, this 'new version' was also distributed to 'registered users only' for a period of time, although that is claimed to have been 'short'. He even admitted to that, and tried to justify it with some crap about how it was only to registered users.
That is a dead giveaway to be bound under the GPL right there, the fact he tries to claim it "doesn't count" as it was only to 'registered users' only undermines his own ignorance.
The way I see this, the already GPL software in question was most definately and intentionally distributed in some capacity, both by the programmer (as a contractor to his client, which is not covered as an 'exception') and by this asshat to whomever 'qualified' to be a 'registered user'. In either case, this is distribution and invokes the GPL's full wrath.
As far as the 'validity' of the GPL FAQ, while I'm sure it is not error-free, it comes from the same group of legal scholars (and their assistants) that gave us the GPL. While I am sure not perfect, they know it better then any of us. I readily trust their interpretation better then anybody except Moglen's.
I find it impossible to believe that any court, anywhere, is going to see an exceedingly minor modification to an existing source code file as anything but being a derivative. This could never be argued to be anything except a direct modification to an existing work, which by definition, almost guarantees it's place as a derivative.
Sorry for the 'author' crack at the end, I was expecting a troll, not somebody who was going to respond in relevence.
cheers,
e.l. aka spacefrog
I don't think so.
... to all third parties." Who are these third parties?
Taken directly from the GPL FAQ:
The GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed
Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version.
The developer in question is not an employee of Furthermore, so this is not "distribution within a single company" which is explicitly allowed. If anything, it was a distribution between a contractor/contractee, which further in the GPL FAQ you will see is considered distribution.
This does not even bring into account the fact that these changes could easily qualify as a derrivitive work, which would make this seemingly simple case all that much simpler.
The author doesn't seem to understand how the GPL works.
By author, I would assume you mean yourself.
Perhaps Furthermore has a case, but it would be a contract dispute with the developer he hired.
Compared especially to the very early 486SX chips, You are absolutely right, in many instances the AMD 386DX-40 would either be faster or be a much better value.
However, the later AMD-based 386DX boards that were cheap used surface-mounted CPU's and from an upgrade-sense were foobar. The ones that were socketed could be upgraded to a Cyrix chip that was often a nightmare, between having to use utilities in the autoexec to enable the L1 cache, and having previously stable systems decide they would start locking up at random.
A 486SX-33 on a board with 256KB cache and VL-Bus slots would cream it, though, and had a very sweet upgrade path.
Once AMD had their 486's on the market, a lot of those boxen that didn't get hand-me-down intel DX2's got the (very affordable) AMD DX2-66.
Going that route and buying high-quality motherboards was a major win. They could have had a third round of CPU upgrades, but the price/performance ratio on the Intel 'overdrive' CPU's was just too pathetic.