If you want to get good performance from 11g and simultaneously support older 11b clients, I would strongly advise setting up separate access points on different channels (and not that although you get 11 channels to choose from in the US, they overlap, so there are really only 3 completely independent channels available, 1, 6, and 11).
The problem is that although 11g products are supposed to interoperate with 11b, they have to slow down to do so. Thus any 11b traffic will seriously limit the effective data rates available for 11g devices. For instance, if you have one 11b device using 5 Mbps of the bandwidth, you won't be able to get more than 10 Mbps from an 11g device.
I've been involved in 11g product development and have seen this firsthand.
Really? Can you cite a reference? I've never heard of such an exemption, and I thought I remembered court cases where the incidental copying was considered to be a factor in a determination of copyright infringement.
It seems fairly presumptuous of you to "correct" my story.
I didn't say that their HR department was in Japan, although I'm not aware of any US law that precludes that. But since it was a matter of corporate policy, and it was not able to be resolved here, they asked corporate headquarters, which most definitely were in Japan in this case.
OK, then I'm fine with employers requiring employees who handle safety-critical sytems to be subjected to such a test at the beginning of a shift. But I'm still not going to piss in a cup as a precondition to employment.
Secondly, how much faith do you have in the upgrade feature of install?
I don't have much experience with other distributions, but I've upgraded a lot of machines running Red Hat, starting from release 2.1, and I've been amazed at how few problems I've ever encountered.
So, if I get a job as a construction worker or someone in charge of a machinery plant, then it's none of the company's business whether or not I'm hopped up on drugs? Even though I hold in my hands the power to injure, maim, or kill someone at my job?
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. It's not the company's business whether the employee takes drugs. I've known many people who do smoke marijuana that are more dependable and trustworthy than some people I've met who do not.
If they had a drug test that could tell simply whether you were impaired at the time of the test, it might be justified to apply that test at the beginning of a shift. But whether a person smoked a joint in the last two weeks is completely irrelevant.
I don't use marijuana myself (though I did try it a few times when I was younger), but as a matter of principle I do not believe that anyone has a valid basis for demanding that I submit to a test.
I don't understand how this is different from a drug screening test. Most employers require it.
Most employers do not require a drug test. I've worked for at least 18 employers, including two Fortune-500 companies, and not one of them asked me to submit to a drug test. I'd have no trouble passing one, but if they asked me to, I'd refuse, because it's none of their damn business.
A close friend applied for a job at a US office of a really big Japanese company. It was their corporate policy to require testing of all candidates. He refused, as a matter of principle. (As far as I know, he does not use illegal drugs, but that's none of my business.) They really wanted to hire him, though, so they checked with corporate headquarters in Japan. They were told that he didn't have to be tested, and they were willing to put that in writing for him. He still refused to take the job, because he didn't want to work for a company that had such policies.
If the employer's other screening indicates that the candidate can perform the job, they should hire him. If he later fails to perform the job in a satisfactory manner, they should fire him. It doesn't matter whether the failure to perform the job is caused by drug use; that's not something they need to know unless the employee chooses to provide that information, for instance, if he requests the company to help him obtain treatment.
It didn't have the emotional involvement of
STII: The Wrath of Kahn, nor the humor of STIV: The Voyage
Home. Unlike First Contact, the enemy wasn't
believable. And although the special effects were good,
the physics was about the worst of any of the
films, weakening my ability to suspend disbelief.
Not to mention the implausibility of the Romulans somehow finding another android created by Dr. Soong, and knowing what the heck it was.
It certainly wasn't as bad as ST: The Motion Sickness or STV: The Final Frontier (in which the only redeeming feature was Kirk's line "What does God need with a starship?"), but it seemed like barely enough material for a one-hour TNG episode, and it wouldn't have been exceptionally memorable even for that.
If they inherited valid software patents on some of the basic designs of UNIX,
They inherited expired patents on some of the basic designs of Unix. Completely useless for litigation.
Apparently the problem is the copyright on some libraries used for the SCO Xenix/Unix emulation. Which are no longer present in most Linux distributions.
These libraries might have been used in Windows NT. But even if they were, MS had probably had the right to do so, since they owned Xenix and licensed it to SCO.
I suspect that the real agenda here is to manipulate their stock price by convincing investors that they're going to get a bunch of licensing revenue. The fact that the licensing revenue will never actually be recognized is irrelevant to such a plan.
If you'd paid any attention to the thread, you would have noticed that my posting was a line-by-line parody of the parent comment, intended to show how stupid it was. I can't believe that anyone would take it seriously.
I understand why people are upset about the proposed legal mandate for speed governors on automobiles, you should be able to drive as fast as you want on your private driveway, yadda yadda yadda.
But like, c'mon, speeding on public highways is rampant. Surely, those of you that *aren't* scofflaws have to understand that some sort of management is necessary? People speed because the believe
a) they are entitled to
b) they believe the speed limits are too low.
Argument (a) is stupid, nobody is entitled ot break the law. Argument (b) is also stupid. There are plenty of freeways available that have reasonably high speed limits. If you're truly upset about speed limits, then use private roads. The fact that you speed (in addition to being morally repugnant) is that it just tells the legislators that you are a criminal, and the fact that you won't pay attention to the limit forces them to clamp down on it.
Furthermore, why won't any of the scofflaws that are reading this (and I know some of you are) go out in your car and run some red lights and hit some pedestrians?
No, the point was that if they use GPL'd code, they aren't required to pay for it again. They can if they want to, e.g., to license it under non-commercial terms.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoever moderated the parent comment as flamebait is an idiot. Someone please mod it up. IMNSHO it's both insightful and funny.
The problem is that although 11g products are supposed to interoperate with 11b, they have to slow down to do so. Thus any 11b traffic will seriously limit the effective data rates available for 11g devices. For instance, if you have one 11b device using 5 Mbps of the bandwidth, you won't be able to get more than 10 Mbps from an 11g device.
I've been involved in 11g product development and have seen this firsthand.
Excellent, thanks!!!
Really? Can you cite a reference? I've never heard of such an exemption, and I thought I remembered court cases where the incidental copying was considered to be a factor in a determination of copyright infringement.
Is Slashdot in the business of granting Nobel prizes now?
I didn't say that their HR department was in Japan, although I'm not aware of any US law that precludes that. But since it was a matter of corporate policy, and it was not able to be resolved here, they asked corporate headquarters, which most definitely were in Japan in this case.
Yes, all of those systems were doing important (to me and my colleagues) "stuff".
OK, then I'm fine with employers requiring employees who handle safety-critical sytems to be subjected to such a test at the beginning of a shift. But I'm still not going to piss in a cup as a precondition to employment.
If they had a drug test that could tell simply whether you were impaired at the time of the test, it might be justified to apply that test at the beginning of a shift. But whether a person smoked a joint in the last two weeks is completely irrelevant.
I don't use marijuana myself (though I did try it a few times when I was younger), but as a matter of principle I do not believe that anyone has a valid basis for demanding that I submit to a test.
A close friend applied for a job at a US office of a really big Japanese company. It was their corporate policy to require testing of all candidates. He refused, as a matter of principle. (As far as I know, he does not use illegal drugs, but that's none of my business.) They really wanted to hire him, though, so they checked with corporate headquarters in Japan. They were told that he didn't have to be tested, and they were willing to put that in writing for him. He still refused to take the job, because he didn't want to work for a company that had such policies.
If the employer's other screening indicates that the candidate can perform the job, they should hire him. If he later fails to perform the job in a satisfactory manner, they should fire him. It doesn't matter whether the failure to perform the job is caused by drug use; that's not something they need to know unless the employee chooses to provide that information, for instance, if he requests the company to help him obtain treatment.
It certainly wasn't as bad as ST: The Motion Sickness or STV: The Final Frontier (in which the only redeeming feature was Kirk's line "What does God need with a starship?"), but it seemed like barely enough material for a one-hour TNG episode, and it wouldn't have been exceptionally memorable even for that.
OK, but the article claims that Atari created Q*Bert, which couldn't be much further from the truth.
Why do people seem to think that all arcade games came from Atari?
Certainly there may be patents on newer stuff, but that wouldn't be "basic designs of Unix".
Apparently the problem is the copyright on some libraries used for the SCO Xenix/Unix emulation. Which are no longer present in most Linux distributions.
These libraries might have been used in Windows NT. But even if they were, MS had probably had the right to do so, since they owned Xenix and licensed it to SCO.
I suspect that the real agenda here is to manipulate their stock price by convincing investors that they're going to get a bunch of licensing revenue. The fact that the licensing revenue will never actually be recognized is irrelevant to such a plan.
Because they don't want you to be able to hack your receiver to save the compressed stream.
If you'd paid any attention to the thread, you would have noticed that my posting was a line-by-line parody of the parent comment, intended to show how stupid it was. I can't believe that anyone would take it seriously.
But like, c'mon, speeding on public highways is rampant. Surely, those of you that *aren't* scofflaws have to understand that some sort of management is necessary? People speed because the believe
a) they are entitled to
b) they believe the speed limits are too low.
Argument (a) is stupid, nobody is entitled ot break the law. Argument (b) is also stupid. There are plenty of freeways available that have reasonably high speed limits. If you're truly upset about speed limits, then use private roads. The fact that you speed (in addition to being morally repugnant) is that it just tells the legislators that you are a criminal, and the fact that you won't pay attention to the limit forces them to clamp down on it.
Furthermore, why won't any of the scofflaws that are reading this (and I know some of you are) go out in your car and run some red lights and hit some pedestrians?
D'oh! That was supposed to read "to license it under non-GPL terms."
No, the point was that if they use GPL'd code, they aren't required to pay for it again. They can if they want to, e.g., to license it under non-commercial terms.
Yeah, and losing more billions of dollars is less painful than that. :-)
So, does anyone know what non-expired US patents SCO has that might cover Linux? I tried a search at uspto.gov, but came up empty-handed.