I think you have a typo in your post subject. It should have been spelled "Why we don't need California"; make this change, and your post makes perfect sense.
In a recent appearance, the Martian information minister released the following statement:
"There are no infidel alien robots on Mars! Never! We have already destroyed one of their stupid vehicles, and we have another one surrounded on all sides! Let the Earthlings bask in their own illusion! They have not landed, and those that have landed, we will welcome with bullets and shoes!"
Their "about us" page seems to say they are an "consultancy" (is that a word) for international standards. Ironic, eh?
Indeed, although I would guess that "international standards" doesn't mean "all international standards"; I'd doubt they would step in if someone started hawking a dodgy TCP stack.
(Also, 'consultancy' is a word; it means pretty much what you'd expect it to mean: a business that either acts as a consultant or is set up to employ consultants to businesses. I've generally heard it more from Commonwealth-types than from Yanks, but it'sreal.)
Then you would have no GPL and no restrictions upon who uses/distributes the code.
Not true... according to the material at this site, the Solicitor General is limiting the effect to organizations. So for any code for which an individual (a 'natural person') owns the copyright, that copyright can't be removed by incorporation into a law.
You see, the USC specifically prohibits the kind of action you're talking about, which is why I'm a little confused about the Solicitor's reasoning . He seems to be splitting hairs between copyright owned by a natural person and copyright owned by an organization--not that I'm against the restriction of the rights of corporations as opposed to humans...
It would seem more logical, if the USC rule stands, to prohibit incorporation of non-public works into law, although given the history of doing just that, that may not be feasible.
Re:Referenced article
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 2, Funny
2.4GHz is an unlicensed chunk of spectrum, much like 900MHz. You can produce whatever you want and use this chunk (which is why microwaves, cordless telephones, wireless networks, and a whole raft of other devices all use it).
There are a few rules on using it, but it's mostly a free-for-all. And you're right, a running microwave (or a cordless phone) does Bad Things to your throughput when the AP is right beside it.
1. Search box from the front page of www.linksys.com. 2. Product page for the AP in question. 3. Downloads section of the site.
You're right, it is obvious if you go to the support page first (I usually don't for this site, because having been there so many times, there are less clicks involved to get to drivers via the products page). But one would think that the search engine would index a superset of the support section...
In any event, the rest of my comment stands. That , as well as the sparseness of the download page, makes be think they're doing this because they got stared down, not because they intended to do so all along. I've seen hardware companies that buy into open source/Free software, and this isn't one of them.
Having followed this since the original post to the LKML, I have a slightly different viewpoint.
Linksys got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They probably didn't think twice about using embedded Linux; in fact, they may not have even made the decision themselves.
When the problem was pointed out to them, they gave several weeks of no conclusive answers, and now they've put up a simple web page with some source tarballs, all or none of which may be what's actually running on the APs. You can't even FIND the page using their support search engine (a search on GPL shows no hits), and they're certainly not announcing it anywhere I've seen.
Perhaps he has a laptop. Wireless and laptops are good, mutually supportive technologies.
I'm posting this from my laptop, which is only 20 feet from my AP, firewall, and DSL modem, but it's still nice not to have to run a cable across the room for someone to trip over...
Re:cool but banal
on
X11 in ASCII
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually, it wasn't intended to be useable (or even)useful). It was intended as a fun diversion for the author, and to that end, I imagine it was successful.
With all respect due to your experience, I would submit that some public water systems do produce water that, while safe, tastes absolutely awful. I've lived in a community for which that was true.
Fortunately, where I live now, the tap water is indistiguishable from bottled, but where I lived before, I invested in a floor-model water cooler (the kind that uses the five- and six-gallon bottles). I agree that (except for drinks on the go) single-serving bottled water is silly, but sometimes the tap is just not good.
Another reason they're still using unnecessarily large bezels is that in office environments where the back of the monitor doesn't face a cubicle or office wall, the edge of the picture gets lost in the background, allegedly increasing eye strain.
I don't have a link to hard information on this, but there was a recent article in one of the standard computer trade rags (I happened to read it at the dentist's).
I'm not sure I buy the argument, but it makes sense. I suppose the monitors from Deus Ex were just too good to be true...
Indeed. Spam has nothing on scrapple for porky goodness.
Scrapple, for the uninitiated, is a rural Pennsylvania delicacy. It's what what you do with the rest of the hog when you're tired after a long day of butchering. In contrast to spam, which is really honest, everyday low-quality meat, scrapple is made like this:
1. Take the pile of leftover parts (heads, bones, feet, liver, heart, etc.) 2. Lightly post-process the parts (remove hair, eyes, eardrums, brains, and teeth, IIRC) 3. Throw it all in a large cauldron of boiling water, and boil until it falls apart. 4. Skim the junk off the top, fish the meaty bits out, and throw them in another pot with approximately a metric ton of corn meal and near-lethal doses of salt, coriander, and pepper, making a kind of hog gruel. 5. Stir until your arms fall off. 6. Pour the gruel into bread pans. Pound the bread pans against the table a couple of times to force the air bubbles out. 7. Let it cool; it will solidify into a grey mass (think of a greyscale picture of minced spam). 8. Fry and eat with maple syrup or ketchup.
I like this method, but I prefer to do it on a separate server, preferably within a system like CVS. After all, if the hard drive you built out gives up the magic smoke, the "build" notes won't help you rebuild the installation.
Robotic exploration of space teaches us everything about space technologies.
I disagree. To take one, too-easy example, what does it teach about the effects of long-term weightlessness on the human body? What about its effects on the results of the advanced medical technologies you mention?
I agree with the original article: too much is done by humans, when it doesn't need to be. I just think that totally mothballing the 'people-in-tin-cans' projects is overreaction. Limit human spaceflight to areas in which it's absolutely required, and increase research on autonomous and semi-autonomous spacefaring systems. Put a completely self-contained lab in Earth orbit and let it sit there, doing its job for a few years (monitoring, not controlling, even though that's close enough to control it). Do progressive steps like that to allow more and more of 'real' spaceflight to be done remotely--not controlled by humans on the ground (since that's not feasible for labs and experiments far out of earth orbit--train hard, fight easy). At the same time, train and research effects on humans in situations like the ISS.
In other words, use the ISS and other human spaceflight for medical research, and leave the non-human scientific research to the autonomous labs.
Human exploration of space can happen naturally in a few centuries, when the technology has caught up with human desires.
Yes, but technology doesn't grow in a vacuum. It grows to address a problem only when exerted a problem. To use an imperfect but still appropriate analogy, you can't say, "I'm too weak to lift weights. I'll wait until I'm stronger, and then do it."
You're out of a job either way, but you have more control over the method this way.
Still blackmail. It boils down to "if you don't do what we want you to do, we are going to do something bad to you." Which is just fine if you're a government, but it's blackmail otherwise.
(Hint: that government reference, like the ice cream reference, was an attempt at levity; apparently your firewall is blocking your humor port.)
Hey, remember when they made security a top priority and said they were going to put a billion man-hours into it, stopping work on everything else? Remember how we saw a sudden drop in worms and holes and crashes after that? Yeah, I only remember the first part, too.
Don't let my signature fool you; I don't disagree with anything in the above paragraph. But blackmail is blackmail, no matter how reasonable and well-intentioned the goal.
Besides, in this case, the desired result doesn't have anything to do with improving security. They're saying, "if you don't add this feature (the ability to run Linux on X-Box), we're going to do something to embarrass and (at least in your eyes) economically damage you (release a set of exploits to allow people to run copies of games on the X-Box)." That seems to fit the legal definition posted by others in this interminable thread.
The consequences don't have to be illegal. For example, if I find out that you lied on your resume, and you would lose your job if your employer found out, it's entirely legal for me to write a newspaper article exposing your secret, even if it brings harm to you.
However, if I come to you and tell you, "I am going to publish this information unless you give me $50,000 and an ice cream soda; either way, it's your choice", it's now blackmail, and it's illegal.
Usual disclaimer: IANAL, etc., but I believe that's how it works, at least where I'm from.
In another post (as well as on several sites on the web), it's recommended to bind a key to pipe the message directly to sa-learn. I read my mail on the server, which is an embarrassingly old machine, and sa-learn takes on the order of 30 seconds per email--not fun when you're just doing 'that last check of email before heading home'. Copying the mail to a file is just about instantaneous, and the sa-learn can do its dirty work while I'm sleepting (or watching The Office, as the case may be).
Spamassassin learns in two ways: 1. Manual training: there is a tool called 'sa-learn'. You can pipe a message to it, or point it to a mailbox, and specify whether the mail is spam or ham. 2. Automatic training: if the score of the mail is significantly low (definitely spam) or significantly high (definitely ham), it will automatically train on the message. This may seem useless, but it's useful in that SA will then start to figure out patterns in spam or ham that don't trigger its rules.
I read mail with Mutt, and I've remapped the 'd'elete key to instead throw the message into a 'ham' mbox, and added a 'S'pam mapping to throw the message into a 'spam' mbox. Then I added a nightly cron job to run sa-learn over the two mboxes and truncate them. This has worked very, very well for me... In I haven't had a single false positive since Bayes kicked in about two months ago, and I got my first false negative in about two weeks today. I typically trap 10-15 spams a day.
One thing to notice: even if you enable it, Bayesian filtering won't kick in until you've recognized at least 200 spam and 200 ham messages. Took me a long time to figure that out (I had plenty of spam, but I wasn't training it on ham at all, which is why I started remapping the mutt commands).
As far as installing it on a server, your users don't have to be able to read each others' mail. I have it installed so that my wife and I each have our own bayes dbs, so neither of us has to read each others' mail. Plus, different users will regard different mail as spam: anything about the Pittsburgh Steelers going to my mailbox is probably spam, but not hers; similarly, anything regarding Linux going to her mailbox is probably spam, but not mine.
Slashdot Mirror
It's emotion number 566.
I think you have a typo in your post subject. It should have been spelled "Why we don't need California"; make this change, and your post makes perfect sense.
There are a few more games that use Python... you might have heard of them:
In a recent appearance, the Martian information minister released the following statement:
"There are no infidel alien robots on Mars! Never! We have already destroyed one of their stupid vehicles, and we have another one surrounded on all sides! Let the Earthlings bask in their own illusion! They have not landed, and those that have landed, we will welcome with bullets and shoes!"
Their "about us" page seems to say they are an "consultancy" (is that a word) for international standards. Ironic, eh?
:-)
Indeed, although I would guess that "international standards" doesn't mean "all international standards"; I'd doubt they would step in if someone started hawking a dodgy TCP stack.
(Also, 'consultancy' is a word; it means pretty much what you'd expect it to mean: a business that either acts as a consultant or is set up to employ consultants to businesses. I've generally heard it more from Commonwealth-types than from Yanks, but it's real.)
Do like I did and email them to make fun of them.
One step ahead of you, hoss.
Then you would have no GPL and no restrictions upon who uses/distributes the code.
Not true... according to the material at this site, the Solicitor General is limiting the effect to organizations. So for any code for which an individual (a 'natural person') owns the copyright, that copyright can't be removed by incorporation into a law.
You see, the USC specifically prohibits the kind of action you're talking about, which is why I'm a little confused about the Solicitor's reasoning . He seems to be splitting hairs between copyright owned by a natural person and copyright owned by an organization--not that I'm against the restriction of the rights of corporations as opposed to humans...
It would seem more logical, if the USC rule stands, to prohibit incorporation of non-public works into law, although given the history of doing just that, that may not be feasible.
Works
n ted.
fine
in
IE.
Still,
as
a
Mozilla
user,
I
was
disappoi
2.4GHz is an unlicensed chunk of spectrum, much like 900MHz. You can produce whatever you want and use this chunk (which is why microwaves, cordless telephones, wireless networks, and a whole raft of other devices all use it).
There are a few rules on using it, but it's mostly a free-for-all. And you're right, a running microwave (or a cordless phone) does Bad Things to your throughput when the AP is right beside it.
Indeed, it does.
The paths I tried were:
1. Search box from the front page of www.linksys.com.
2. Product page for the AP in question.
3. Downloads section of the site.
You're right, it is obvious if you go to the support page first (I usually don't for this site, because having been there so many times, there are less clicks involved to get to drivers via the products page). But one would think that the search engine would index a superset of the support section...
In any event, the rest of my comment stands. That , as well as the sparseness of the download page, makes be think they're doing this because they got stared down, not because they intended to do so all along. I've seen hardware companies that buy into open source/Free software, and this isn't one of them.
Having followed this since the original post to the LKML, I have a slightly different viewpoint.
Linksys got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They probably didn't think twice about using embedded Linux; in fact, they may not have even made the decision themselves.
When the problem was pointed out to them, they gave several weeks of no conclusive answers, and now they've put up a simple web page with some source tarballs, all or none of which may be what's actually running on the APs. You can't even FIND the page using their support search engine (a search on GPL shows no hits), and they're certainly not announcing it anywhere I've seen.
It's the least they could do. Approximately.
Perhaps he has a laptop. Wireless and laptops are good, mutually supportive technologies.
I'm posting this from my laptop, which is only 20 feet from my AP, firewall, and DSL modem, but it's still nice not to have to run a cable across the room for someone to trip over...
Actually, it wasn't intended to be useable (or even)useful). It was intended as a fun diversion for the author, and to that end, I imagine it was successful.
With all respect due to your experience, I would submit that some public water systems do produce water that, while safe, tastes absolutely awful. I've lived in a community for which that was true.
Fortunately, where I live now, the tap water is indistiguishable from bottled, but where I lived before, I invested in a floor-model water cooler (the kind that uses the five- and six-gallon bottles). I agree that (except for drinks on the go) single-serving bottled water is silly, but sometimes the tap is just not good.
Another reason they're still using unnecessarily large bezels is that in office environments where the back of the monitor doesn't face a cubicle or office wall, the edge of the picture gets lost in the background, allegedly increasing eye strain.
I don't have a link to hard information on this, but there was a recent article in one of the standard computer trade rags (I happened to read it at the dentist's).
I'm not sure I buy the argument, but it makes sense. I suppose the monitors from Deus Ex were just too good to be true...
Yes, souse ['head cheese'] is similar, but it contains more of the cartilage jelly and no cornmeal, so it's more squishy and less loaf-like.
I don't care for souse.
I'm not going to attempt to respond to this.
Ahh, so you accidentally typed that and pressed Submit?
Indeed. Spam has nothing on scrapple for porky goodness.
Scrapple, for the uninitiated, is a rural Pennsylvania delicacy. It's what what you do with the rest of the hog when you're tired after a long day of butchering. In contrast to spam, which is really honest, everyday low-quality meat, scrapple is made like this:
1. Take the pile of leftover parts (heads, bones, feet, liver, heart, etc.)
2. Lightly post-process the parts (remove hair, eyes, eardrums, brains, and teeth, IIRC)
3. Throw it all in a large cauldron of boiling water, and boil until it falls apart.
4. Skim the junk off the top, fish the meaty bits out, and throw them in another pot with approximately a metric ton of corn meal and near-lethal doses of salt, coriander, and pepper, making a kind of hog gruel.
5. Stir until your arms fall off.
6. Pour the gruel into bread pans. Pound the bread pans against the table a couple of times to force the air bubbles out.
7. Let it cool; it will solidify into a grey mass (think of a greyscale picture of minced spam).
8. Fry and eat with maple syrup or ketchup.
I helped make this crap when I was a kid.
Uh, well, yes, I still eat it, too, on occasion.
I like this method, but I prefer to do it on a separate server, preferably within a system like CVS. After all, if the hard drive you built out gives up the magic smoke, the "build" notes won't help you rebuild the installation.
Robotic exploration of space teaches us everything about space technologies.
I disagree. To take one, too-easy example, what does it teach about the effects of long-term weightlessness on the human body? What about its effects on the results of the advanced medical technologies you mention?
I agree with the original article: too much is done by humans, when it doesn't need to be. I just think that totally mothballing the 'people-in-tin-cans' projects is overreaction. Limit human spaceflight to areas in which it's absolutely required, and increase research on autonomous and semi-autonomous spacefaring systems. Put a completely self-contained lab in Earth orbit and let it sit there, doing its job for a few years (monitoring, not controlling, even though that's close enough to control it). Do progressive steps like that to allow more and more of 'real' spaceflight to be done remotely--not controlled by humans on the ground (since that's not feasible for labs and experiments far out of earth orbit--train hard, fight easy). At the same time, train and research effects on humans in situations like the ISS.
In other words, use the ISS and other human spaceflight for medical research, and leave the non-human scientific research to the autonomous labs.
Human exploration of space can happen naturally in a few centuries, when the technology has caught up with human desires.
Yes, but technology doesn't grow in a vacuum. It grows to address a problem only when exerted a problem. To use an imperfect but still appropriate analogy, you can't say, "I'm too weak to lift weights. I'll wait until I'm stronger, and then do it."
You're out of a job either way, but you have more control over the method this way.
Still blackmail. It boils down to "if you don't do what we want you to do, we are going to do something bad to you." Which is just fine if you're a government, but it's blackmail otherwise.
(Hint: that government reference, like the ice cream reference, was an attempt at levity; apparently your firewall is blocking your humor port.)
Hey, remember when they made security a top priority and said they were going to put a billion man-hours into it, stopping work on everything else? Remember how we saw a sudden drop in worms and holes and crashes after that? Yeah, I only remember the first part, too.
Don't let my signature fool you; I don't disagree with anything in the above paragraph. But blackmail is blackmail, no matter how reasonable and well-intentioned the goal.
Besides, in this case, the desired result doesn't have anything to do with improving security. They're saying, "if you don't add this feature (the ability to run Linux on X-Box), we're going to do something to embarrass and (at least in your eyes) economically damage you (release a set of exploits to allow people to run copies of games on the X-Box)." That seems to fit the legal definition posted by others in this interminable thread.
The consequences don't have to be illegal. For example, if I find out that you lied on your resume, and you would lose your job if your employer found out, it's entirely legal for me to write a newspaper article exposing your secret, even if it brings harm to you.
However, if I come to you and tell you, "I am going to publish this information unless you give me $50,000 and an ice cream soda; either way, it's your choice", it's now blackmail, and it's illegal.
Usual disclaimer: IANAL, etc., but I believe that's how it works, at least where I'm from.
Why upgrade a server if it still works?
Because you're not generating revenue for Microsoft. If we stop buying new operating systems, then the terrorists win.
Not at all. The macros are short and sweet:
/usr/bin/sa-learn --spam --mbox /home/tim/Mail/bspam /usr/bin/sa-learn --ham --mbox /home/tim/Mail/bham
macro index d ~/Mail/bham^my
macro pager d ~/Mail/bham^my
macro index S ~/Mail/bspam^my
macro pager S ~/Mail/bspam^my
Then the relevant sections of my crontab look like this:
0 2 * * *
15 2 * * *
In another post (as well as on several sites on the web), it's recommended to bind a key to pipe the message directly to sa-learn. I read my mail on the server, which is an embarrassingly old machine, and sa-learn takes on the order of 30 seconds per email--not fun when you're just doing 'that last check of email before heading home'. Copying the mail to a file is just about instantaneous, and the sa-learn can do its dirty work while I'm sleepting (or watching The Office, as the case may be).
Spamassassin learns in two ways:
1. Manual training: there is a tool called 'sa-learn'. You can pipe a message to it, or point it to a mailbox, and specify whether the mail is spam or ham.
2. Automatic training: if the score of the mail is significantly low (definitely spam) or significantly high (definitely ham), it will automatically train on the message. This may seem useless, but it's useful in that SA will then start to figure out patterns in spam or ham that don't trigger its rules.
I read mail with Mutt, and I've remapped the 'd'elete key to instead throw the message into a 'ham' mbox, and added a 'S'pam mapping to throw the message into a 'spam' mbox. Then I added a nightly cron job to run sa-learn over the two mboxes and truncate them. This has worked very, very well for me... In I haven't had a single false positive since Bayes kicked in about two months ago, and I got my first false negative in about two weeks today. I typically trap 10-15 spams a day.
One thing to notice: even if you enable it, Bayesian filtering won't kick in until you've recognized at least 200 spam and 200 ham messages. Took me a long time to figure that out (I had plenty of spam, but I wasn't training it on ham at all, which is why I started remapping the mutt commands).
As far as installing it on a server, your users don't have to be able to read each others' mail. I have it installed so that my wife and I each have our own bayes dbs, so neither of us has to read each others' mail. Plus, different users will regard different mail as spam: anything about the Pittsburgh Steelers going to my mailbox is probably spam, but not hers; similarly, anything regarding Linux going to her mailbox is probably spam, but not mine.