The graphic on Transitive's website shows only Unix/Linux operating systems. One of their steps, Operating System Mapping, says "QuickTransit supports operating system mapping between any two Unix/Linux-like operating systems, as well as mapping between mainframe and any Unix/Linux-like operating systems." Doesn't sound like Windows to me.
All of this is supposedly done on the fly, and not beforehand.
Quake and The Gimp wouldn't be my choices to show off flexibility. Quake is OpenGL on Linux and OSX, so there isn't any graphics magic going on. And the ability of BSD-based systems to run Linux binaries is old hat. The Gimp isn't exactly taxing on a CPU as far as user responsiveness goes.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Press conferences for journalists aren't a conducive forum for proving anything. They are a good place to baffle 'em with bullshit, though.
About a wild pack of chihuahuas that had deterioriated so bad they hunted in a pack and wiped out neighborhood animals. Eventually rescued, they had to be separated out because they ended up killing several other dogs in the shelter.
Any dog can go bad, given provocation, neglect or bad training. Most cases of mauling occur w/dogs that were "attack trained" and improperly supervised. 90%+ of the blame lies squarely with the owners.
Almost, not quite. Beta and BetaMax are two different animals.
Beta was Sony's commercial endeavour and it was quite the hit, as you are claiming. BetaMax was the related, but different physical tape, consumer attempt that died a horrid death.
I don't have a 5 year old, I have 2 14-year olds and a 16-year old.
ALL of them were properly trained on firearms. At age 5, they knew that guns were dangerous and for mommy and daddy only. They also knew EXACTLY what the bang was and what it could do to both a target and an animal. They'd also seen, through an educational trip to an emergency room, just what a gun can do to a person. And, more importantly, what drinking and driving can do to a person (much more likely to happen.)
Nor were they kept loaded, laying around.
Are you a *total* dumbass, or just play one on Slashdot?
Gotta love Slashdot. I make the same mistake every time. Not specifying EVERY LAST LITTLE DETAIL, thinking that people will actually think for themselves. I should have learned by now.
I never said "mean" dog. I've owned several Rotts and they were all loveable. One even broke free from the chain, jumped the fence and ran the neighborhood -- slobbering and jumping like a big puppy, happy to let anyone pet her and dragged home by a neighbor kid.
However, go into my back yard unescored and you'd lose an arm -- or more. With a family member, and you were as safe as at your own house.
I didn't mean to LEAVE THE DOG UNATTENDED in front, except maybe at night -- if your front yard is fenced and posted "mean dog".
Yes, any medium sized dog would do just as well. I just happen to be fond of Rottweilers.
If your kid wanders into my yard we have two possibilities:
Finally, if my neighborhood was bad enough I had to boot my own car, I'd simply move.
VIA is better. The VIA Mini-ITX have hardware support for MPEG-2 (CN266) and AES, and the new CN400 boards also have hardware support for MPEG-4. They even release some custom stuff for Xine to support hardware acceleration of MPEG-2/4.
This way you low-power, low-heat VIA CPU can focus on other stuff than video decode/encryption.
1. Get a club or some such for the car, to help prevent the car itself from being stolen. A removable face plate on the car stereo. Don't leave anything of value visible in the car. (Deter)
2. Outdoor video camera tied to the motion sensing light. This way, if something does happen, you have a record. DON'T go for the cheapest camera. It doesn't do any good if you can't recognize anything in the video. (Detect)
3. Defend is harder, since you said you don't want anything that could hurt anyone. A shame, as pain is a very effective deterrent. I'd suggest a nice rottweiler. They are lovable to those they know, but can be very territorial. Measure the distance from the front porch to the car, and affix a chain to the porch that is about 6" short of the car. With some sort of quick release, just in case.
A pump shotgun in case anyone gets nasty ideas and tries to enter the house. They take little skill and are quite effective at short ranges.
Timelines in this case don't matter. We fought a war to a standstill w/Korea in the 1950s. China is sitting their back end, watching over their shoulder.
I can't see a time in the last hundred years where it would make much of a difference.
Prior to the late 1940s, it was the Empire of Japan's back yard. After that, China's. Prior to 1900 the U.S. didn't have the muscle.
If Korea had the richest oil reserves in the world, China would have annexed them back in the 1950s. They're next door and we're an ocean away.
The question is, do cameras like that help reduce crime? London and parts of England are blanketed with these types of cameras, and while they have been shown to cut down on vehicle thefts, the statistics show no affect on violent crime.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Pa ge =%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200206%5CFOR2002062 8c.html
However, that is from 2002. Can anyone find more recent data?
The two areas I think would be of interest are:
Do they help prevent crime? and Do they increase the conviction rates after the crime has been committed?
"We also affirm that the rights that consumers have under our rules to install and operate customer antennas one meter or less in size apply to the operation of unlicensed equipment, such as Wi-Fi access points - just as they do to the use of equipment in connection with fixed wireless services licensed by the FCC."
Q: Does this mean that I can install an antenna that will be used for voice and data services even though it does not provide video transmissions?
A: Yes. The most recent amendment expands the rule and permits you to install an antenna that will be used to transmit and/or receive voice and data services, except as noted above. The rule will also continue to cover antennas used to receive video programming.
Conveniently avoiding the example of no excessive noise after _ pm which entails a restriction on the public property of the audio spectrum....
Sorry. I'll do better this time.
The audible and visible parts of the spectrum aren't regulated by the FCC, thus your example is once again outside their jurisdiction and fair game.
You are off your rocker. Do you wear a tin foil beanie in that basement?
I was just making the point that in the SPECIAL case of regulated radio spectrum, the FCC trumps all in the U.S. No one else has the authority to regulate there unless they go through the FCC or Congress. It is a simple jurisdictional issue.
Ummm... how many dorms actually have you sign a lease?
I have no idea, and that is a crucial point. If you aren't considered a lessor, but rather a guest...totally different.
Your argument on cops is also flawed...
Well, my argument didn't actually specify. Publically available businesses are different than private, private property. They are regulated differently by nature of their allowing access to the general public.
If I decide to drive 100 MPH on my private road on my property in Western Montana, there isn't a darn thing any cop can do about it. The road isn't available to the public, and neither is the land. There is no posted speed limit, so I'm not breaking any law. That is the key -- not breaking a law.
Smoking and drinking, again, don't have governing bodies that overrule the Univ. Well, the smoking bit is probably a law now in most places. Still, electromagnetic spectrum IS a special case.
Bottom line is you are confusing: A)Legislation which says you have no right to stop your neigbour or any random person from interfering with your use of certain bands. with: B)A blanket right that it's your God given right to use those bands, and no other laws or rights shall ever stop you regardless, and no other sanction can ever be brought to bear on you under any other legislation whatsoever.
No, the bottom line is you are ignoring the fact that the FCC overrules everyone else when it comes to spectrum. THAT is why it is a special case and animals, noise ordinances, firearms and hoax fire calls (a crime in many places) are NOT.
NONE of those items are held in the public trust. None of the have a single governing body. ALL of your examples apply to PRIVATE PROPERTY, except the fire one which is also a crime.
By attempting to restrict WiFi access the landlord is attempting to regulate PUBLIC PROPERTY (spectrum) for which he has NO JURISDICTION.
It is my FCC given right to use those bands, and no other laws or rights shall ever stop me regardless, and no other sanction can every be brought to bear on me under any other legislation whatsoever. EXCEPT as handed down by the FCC, or by Congress amending the laws that govern the spectrum. Nobody else has jurisdiction. Simple as that.
You're missing the point that as a lessor, your have certain rights.
And no, cops (city/county) are not the sole governing body for all things traffic related. They are on PUBLIC STREETS, but not PRIVATE PROPERTY.
There is no such thing as private property as it relates to wireless spectrum. It is ALL in the public trust and thus private property rights DO NOT APPLY.
None of the items you mentioned are regulated by a governing body, charged by Congress to govern public property in trust (the airwaves).
The electromagnetic spectrum is a special case. The FCC has been charged by Congress with overseeing it. No silly piece of paper between you and a landlord can override that.
You don't seem to grasp that there is a fundamental difference when talking about property held in the public trust. There is no such thing as "private property" with airwaves. The landlord doesn't own them and can't regulate them. Period.
The safety exemption I mention is an exemption granted by the FCC explicitly for the unlicensed spectrum of public airwaves. Unsurprisingly, they can only grant the exemption for items under their supervision. It has nothing to do with fuzzy bunnies, unless they can radiate in the 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz band. (There is a "rabbit ears" joke in there, somewhere.)
The airwaves are held in the public trust and regulated by the FCC, and ONLY the FCC. No other body, including Universities, landlords or State Governments may tell you what you can and can't do with regard to public spectrum. There are execptions, the biggest being for safety. Note that the military probably is also exempt from this, though it is a tougher call.
If a landlord put "can kill you anytime during this agreement", would it be legal? Hell, no! There are certain rights that can't be given up just because you sign a piece of paper.
Arguments about landscaping, paint, hotplates or anything NOT REGULATED BY A GOVERNING BODY like the FCC are not relevant.
No, the University could not legally bar you from using an AP as a condition of being enrolled. This is still an attempt to indirectly regulate the public use of airwaves, which is the sole purvue of the FCC. They might try, but it should be found illegal if challenged. (IANAL, I just play on one/.)
Yes, the can ban other stuff not covered by reglating bodies.
There is no such thing as "private property" when talking about airwaves, aka electromagnetic spectrum. The University doesn't own the airwaves, they are held in the public trust and regulated by the FCC -- and ONLY the FCC.
The hotplate analogy is NOT accurate -- that is a safety measure. Nor are hotplates regulated exclusively by the FCC.
The FCC explicitly says they are the only ones who can make these calls, except in the cases of safety.
Leaseholders have certain rights, and no change clause can affect that. If the students sign a lease, then it doesn't matter if the apartments are on school property or not.
Use of the unregulated spectrum by the University means that same University agrees to accept all interference from compliant devices, hence the FCC Class A/B labels.
Slashdot Mirror
The graphic on Transitive's website shows only Unix/Linux operating systems. One of their steps, Operating System Mapping, says "QuickTransit supports operating system mapping between any two Unix/Linux-like operating systems, as well as mapping between mainframe and any Unix/Linux-like operating systems." Doesn't sound like Windows to me.
All of this is supposedly done on the fly, and not beforehand.
Quake and The Gimp wouldn't be my choices to show off flexibility. Quake is OpenGL on Linux and OSX, so there isn't any graphics magic going on. And the ability of BSD-based systems to run Linux binaries is old hat. The Gimp isn't exactly taxing on a CPU as far as user responsiveness goes.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Press conferences for journalists aren't a conducive forum for proving anything. They are a good place to baffle 'em with bullshit, though.
-Charles
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-22-2003-44503.a sp
About a wild pack of chihuahuas that had deterioriated so bad they hunted in a pack and wiped out neighborhood animals. Eventually rescued, they had to be separated out because they ended up killing several other dogs in the shelter.
Any dog can go bad, given provocation, neglect or bad training. Most cases of mauling occur w/dogs that were "attack trained" and improperly supervised. 90%+ of the blame lies squarely with the owners.
Almost, not quite. Beta and BetaMax are two different animals.
Beta was Sony's commercial endeavour and it was quite the hit, as you are claiming. BetaMax was the related, but different physical tape, consumer attempt that died a horrid death.
...was "damn, are they DECADES to late! These Sony BetaMax nuts are worse than Mac people or Amiga owners -- and that is saying something."
I don't have a 5 year old, I have 2 14-year olds and a 16-year old.
ALL of them were properly trained on firearms. At age 5, they knew that guns were dangerous and for mommy and daddy only. They also knew EXACTLY what the bang was and what it could do to both a target and an animal. They'd also seen, through an educational trip to an emergency room, just what a gun can do to a person. And, more importantly, what drinking and driving can do to a person (much more likely to happen.)
Nor were they kept loaded, laying around.
Are you a *total* dumbass, or just play one on Slashdot?
Gotta love Slashdot. I make the same mistake every time. Not specifying EVERY LAST LITTLE DETAIL, thinking that people will actually think for themselves. I should have learned by now.
I never said "mean" dog. I've owned several Rotts and they were all loveable. One even broke free from the chain, jumped the fence and ran the neighborhood -- slobbering and jumping like a big puppy, happy to let anyone pet her and dragged home by a neighbor kid.
However, go into my back yard unescored and you'd lose an arm -- or more. With a family member, and you were as safe as at your own house.
I didn't mean to LEAVE THE DOG UNATTENDED in front, except maybe at night -- if your front yard is fenced and posted "mean dog".
Yes, any medium sized dog would do just as well. I just happen to be fond of Rottweilers.
If your kid wanders into my yard we have two possibilities:
Finally, if my neighborhood was bad enough I had to boot my own car, I'd simply move.
VIA is better. The VIA Mini-ITX have hardware support for MPEG-2 (CN266) and AES, and the new CN400 boards also have hardware support for MPEG-4. They even release some custom stuff for Xine to support hardware acceleration of MPEG-2/4.
This way you low-power, low-heat VIA CPU can focus on other stuff than video decode/encryption.
1. Get a club or some such for the car, to help prevent the car itself from being stolen. A removable face plate on the car stereo. Don't leave anything of value visible in the car. (Deter)
2. Outdoor video camera tied to the motion sensing light. This way, if something does happen, you have a record. DON'T go for the cheapest camera. It doesn't do any good if you can't recognize anything in the video. (Detect)
3. Defend is harder, since you said you don't want anything that could hurt anyone. A shame, as pain is a very effective deterrent. I'd suggest a nice rottweiler. They are lovable to those they know, but can be very territorial. Measure the distance from the front porch to the car, and affix a chain to the porch that is about 6" short of the car. With some sort of quick release, just in case.
A pump shotgun in case anyone gets nasty ideas and tries to enter the house. They take little skill and are quite effective at short ranges.
Timelines in this case don't matter. We fought a war to a standstill w/Korea in the 1950s. China is sitting their back end, watching over their shoulder.
I can't see a time in the last hundred years where it would make much of a difference.
Prior to the late 1940s, it was the Empire of Japan's back yard. After that, China's. Prior to 1900 the U.S. didn't have the muscle.
If Korea had the richest oil reserves in the world, China would have annexed them back in the 1950s. They're next door and we're an ocean away.
You an an ignorant dumbass.
We invaded Iraq because:
1. We were already there.
2. They couldn't do shit about it.
We don't invade N. Korea because:
1. S. Korea
2. Japan
If the battles in Iraq spilled over into Iran or Syria, we didn't care. Saddam proved in Gulf War I that scuds aimed at Israel were a joke.
Kim Jong Il's missiles aimed at Seoul and Tokyo are a completely different matter.
N. Korea could be sitting on the largest oil reserves in the world and we wouldn't invade.
Is there an alternative kernel? 2.6.8 has problems as noted at http://k3b.plainblack.com/index.pl/news2.
This affects the dvd+rw-tools and not just K3B.
-Charles
The question is, do cameras like that help reduce crime? London and parts of England are blanketed with these types of cameras, and while they have been shown to cut down on vehicle thefts, the statistics show no affect on violent crime.
a ge =%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200206%5CFOR2002062 8c.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?P
However, that is from 2002. Can anyone find more recent data?
The two areas I think would be of interest are:
Do they help prevent crime? and Do they increase the conviction rates after the crime has been committed?
But... the FCC keeps referring to "commercial" broadcasts. I need to dig to see about "non-commercial" broadcasts.
They *do* address mesh and point-to-point, surprisingly.
Or, more to the point, the June 24, 2004 clarification:
c h/ DA-04-1844A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmat
"We also affirm that the rights that consumers have under our rules to install and operate customer antennas one meter or less in size apply to the operation of unlicensed equipment, such as Wi-Fi access points - just as they do to the use of equipment in connection with fixed wireless services licensed by the FCC."
Keep reading...
Q: Does this mean that I can install an antenna that will be used for voice and data services even though it does not provide video transmissions?
A: Yes. The most recent amendment expands the rule and permits you to install an antenna that will be used to transmit and/or receive voice and data services, except as noted above. The rule will also continue to cover antennas used to receive video programming.
Conveniently avoiding the example of no excessive noise after _ pm which entails a restriction on the public property of the audio spectrum....
Sorry. I'll do better this time.
The audible and visible parts of the spectrum aren't regulated by the FCC, thus your example is once again outside their jurisdiction and fair game.
You are off your rocker. Do you wear a tin foil beanie in that basement?
I was just making the point that in the SPECIAL case of regulated radio spectrum, the FCC trumps all in the U.S. No one else has the authority to regulate there unless they go through the FCC or Congress. It is a simple jurisdictional issue.
Ummm... how many dorms actually have you sign a lease?
I have no idea, and that is a crucial point. If you aren't considered a lessor, but rather a guest...totally different.
Your argument on cops is also flawed...
Well, my argument didn't actually specify. Publically available businesses are different than private, private property. They are regulated differently by nature of their allowing access to the general public.
If I decide to drive 100 MPH on my private road on my property in Western Montana, there isn't a darn thing any cop can do about it. The road isn't available to the public, and neither is the land. There is no posted speed limit, so I'm not breaking any law. That is the key -- not breaking a law.
Smoking and drinking, again, don't have governing bodies that overrule the Univ. Well, the smoking bit is probably a law now in most places. Still, electromagnetic spectrum IS a special case.
Bottom line is you are confusing:
A)Legislation which says you have no right to stop your neigbour or any random person from interfering with your use of certain bands.
with:
B)A blanket right that it's your God given right to use those bands, and no other laws or rights shall ever stop you regardless, and no other sanction can ever be brought to bear on you under any other legislation whatsoever.
No, the bottom line is you are ignoring the fact that the FCC overrules everyone else when it comes to spectrum. THAT is why it is a special case and animals, noise ordinances, firearms and hoax fire calls (a crime in many places) are NOT.
NONE of those items are held in the public trust. None of the have a single governing body. ALL of your examples apply to PRIVATE PROPERTY, except the fire one which is also a crime.
By attempting to restrict WiFi access the landlord is attempting to regulate PUBLIC PROPERTY (spectrum) for which he has NO JURISDICTION.
It is my FCC given right to use those bands, and no other laws or rights shall ever stop me regardless, and no other sanction can every be brought to bear on me under any other legislation whatsoever. EXCEPT as handed down by the FCC, or by Congress amending the laws that govern the spectrum. Nobody else has jurisdiction. Simple as that.
You're missing the point that as a lessor, your have certain rights.
And no, cops (city/county) are not the sole governing body for all things traffic related. They are on PUBLIC STREETS, but not PRIVATE PROPERTY.
There is no such thing as private property as it relates to wireless spectrum. It is ALL in the public trust and thus private property rights DO NOT APPLY.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
None of the items you mentioned are regulated by a governing body, charged by Congress to govern public property in trust (the airwaves).
The electromagnetic spectrum is a special case. The FCC has been charged by Congress with overseeing it. No silly piece of paper between you and a landlord can override that.
You don't seem to grasp that there is a fundamental difference when talking about property held in the public trust. There is no such thing as "private property" with airwaves. The landlord doesn't own them and can't regulate them. Period.
The safety exemption I mention is an exemption granted by the FCC explicitly for the unlicensed spectrum of public airwaves. Unsurprisingly, they can only grant the exemption for items under their supervision. It has nothing to do with fuzzy bunnies, unless they can radiate in the 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz band. (There is a "rabbit ears" joke in there, somewhere.)
-Charles
Open and shut.
/.)
The airwaves are held in the public trust and regulated by the FCC, and ONLY the FCC. No other body, including Universities, landlords or State Governments may tell you what you can and can't do with regard to public spectrum. There are execptions, the biggest being for safety. Note that the military probably is also exempt from this, though it is a tougher call.
If a landlord put "can kill you anytime during this agreement", would it be legal? Hell, no! There are certain rights that can't be given up just because you sign a piece of paper.
Arguments about landscaping, paint, hotplates or anything NOT REGULATED BY A GOVERNING BODY like the FCC are not relevant.
No, the University could not legally bar you from using an AP as a condition of being enrolled. This is still an attempt to indirectly regulate the public use of airwaves, which is the sole purvue of the FCC. They might try, but it should be found illegal if challenged. (IANAL, I just play on one
Yes, the can ban other stuff not covered by reglating bodies.
There is no such thing as "private property" when talking about airwaves, aka electromagnetic spectrum. The University doesn't own the airwaves, they are held in the public trust and regulated by the FCC -- and ONLY the FCC.
-Charles
The hotplate analogy is incorrect. Hotplates are a safety issue, which is specifically exempted by the FCC. Not that the FCC regulates hotplates.
As a leaseholder, you have certain rights regardless of what the property owner says. The school is wrong and I doubt they are playing semantics.
If they are, then hell -- get two wireless NIC cards and put one in AP mode. Semantics all your own.
The hotplate analogy is NOT accurate -- that is a safety measure. Nor are hotplates regulated exclusively by the FCC.
The FCC explicitly says they are the only ones who can make these calls, except in the cases of safety.
Leaseholders have certain rights, and no change clause can affect that. If the students sign a lease, then it doesn't matter if the apartments are on school property or not.
Use of the unregulated spectrum by the University means that same University agrees to accept all interference from compliant devices, hence the FCC Class A/B labels.
There are explicit exemptions for safety purposes, such as with power plants, air control towers, blasting zones, etc.