Actually, I think you will find it is not the preferential voting system which promotes the two party system. Rather it is the system of having electroral districts. A party can poll 20% of the vote across the nation, and the likely outcome is no seat in parliament, since they don't get a majority in any one seat.
The preferential system is also used in the Australian senate, where there are no boundaries within states. Here we see minority parties (Greens, Democrats, independents) getting seats and so having a say in politics. This is why the senate is so important in Australia, as a house of review. In my opinion, the preferential system works well for multiple parties, despite its complexity.
Aren't there and awful lot of similar things out there using LDAP to store settings and statistics? Also doesn't IMAP include some way of storing settings and other such 'meta' information?
Presumambly LDAP is included as part of the 'world wide web' (including http, ftp,...) as distinct from the 'http web', so they cannot even claim the dubious novelty of just sustituting LDAP with HTTP?
Fully agree! Sloppy use of language on my part! As a science graduate I should be more careful. I'm going to use the excuse that I am actually an engineer first and a scientist second.:-)
Perhaps SCO's backers want SCO to go bankrupt? The money McBride and friends make is a sweetner, which might also offset costs, but not the main aim? Consequently, the SCO plan is right on track, with SCO going bankrupt in the most public and spectacular way possible.
Once SCO has been hung, drawn and quartered, MS and friends wheel out the FUD machine big time and say "See, this is what happens to those who use Linux, the FSF and the GPL".
If this theory is correct, the Free Software community needs to be ready to counter such a follow up. The Free Software community needs to be empasising that SCO broke the law and that is why they went bankrupt, not because they dealt with Linux. At the same time, lots of Linux success stories are needed, so the community can counter with, "No, this is really what hapens to those who use Linux" (ie. success)
My mistake. I meant to say 'The only way to read email from a windows user will be to get a copy of Windows'. Do you think MS will be releasing a Linux version of the email reading program?
>Microsoft says a free viewing program will be available for those who receive a protected document but are not using Office 2003.
Why would one need a special reader if email standards are adhered to? Presumably this is an attempt to hijack the email system by getting all Office users to send email in a format which is unreadable by non-Office users. The only way to read email from a windows user will be to get a copy of Office 2003.
Personally I will be replying to all such emails with a polite message that the message got garbled in transmision and could the sender please fix the problem in their system.
In a moral sense I agree with you. Unfortunately for Free Software campaigners (and Cisco), in a legal sense the house is 'owned', and the winner of Cisco/Linksys vs. the FSF will be decided by the law, not morals.
> But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners.
The problem with this argument is that the house isn't yours to burn down, or at the least was built with building materials that you did not have permision to use!
I suspect the author's prejudice (paranoia?) is displayed by the closing comment. Such a pity Fores publishes such drivel.
Now there's a challenge for the Free Software
Community.
It seems like an ideal Free Software project: low cost hardware, high cost of writing the software, very smart brains required to write the software...
What about modifying Linux's WiFi drivers to perform passive radar (or just running it as a background application on top of the WiFi diver)? Someway would have to be found to distribute accurate time over the Internet so samples coming out of the WiFi card could be timestamped. Perhaps GPS could be used to locate each antenna,or it could be inferred from the received signals? The processing could be done in a distributed manner (like SETI@home) with every antenna (WiFi card) owner cotributing to the processing. Results could be fed to a distributed network, such as a Freenet, so anyone in the world can view the results on a world map? It's very 'pie in the sky' but I don't see any impossibilities there (only major challenges).
Why should those with money have all the fun? Tracking all those UFOs coming out of airforce bases would make a fun hobby.
It was quite strange when I visited Finland to see a pile of gumboots sitting in the corner with a big 'NOKIA' brand on the front. Apparently every Finn has a pair of Nokia gumboots.
in common with some secretaries, the computer will use its knowledge of its master's foibles to manipulate its 'master'? It'll start with convincing you to buy overpriced fund raising chocolates, then move onto presents for the staff, buy that new software that will make your life easier (written by the same company that wrote the secretary, of course), and so on. I can hear the marketroids salivating already.
Why is it that so few people realise the value in proving something to be false?
The research/reward system discriminates against those who debunk myths. If you prove something to be false you can't patent it and make a pot of money off it. Meanwhile, your hard work has eliminated 'red herrings' allowing others to advance more quickly. Those 'successful' people then take out patents, arrived at more quickly as a consequence of your results, and prevent you from reaping the fruits of your own labour.
To add insult to injury, other (small minded?) people then denigrate you for being 'unsuccessful'.
Those screen shots actually look quite usable. (Well, no worse than the original versions of 'Turbo C'.)
It's interesting that once the flashy grapics is stripped away, today's user interface looks (and functions?) basically the same as yesterdays. Perhaps much of what we call 'advances in user interface' is just eye candy, or am I being deceived by appearances?
The jet engine itself cannot be covered by the GPL, as you cannot copyright an actual jet engine. The GPL would only apply to the plans which are used to build the engine. Presumambly if you gave the plans to someone, you would also have to give them soft copies. Also it would prevent you from only giving them half the plans, and obscuring som detail, as the GPL requires that a work be distributed as a whole or not at all.
Maybe Bruce Simpson in New Zealand has the lead on them? He's been building pulse jets for years and even has DIY plans for one. He's considering covering the design with th GPL. Imagine that, a GPLd jet engine!
Using SCO's reasoning that copyright law allows only one copy, doesn't that eliminate the BSD license as well?
Just about every company out there uses BSD licensed code (including Microsoft). If the BSD license is ruled invalid, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people out there! I can't see the US government allowing the destruction of MS windows.
See my comments about power consumption in response to another poster (same thread).
> the session/discovery stuff isn't as good,
Just means that stuff has to live in the application layer.
> if it reaches much more than a metre or so it's TOO FAR
Then reduce the transmitted output power. There's nothing to say that 802.11 has to transmit with an output power of the order of 100mW.
> It really doesn't matter what the inventor wanted 802
Unless the inventor is now a senior executive in one of the largest (the largest?) WLAN players.
Okay my original post was in fairly 'in your face', but trust me, 802.11 is suited to low power applications. I agree it currently sees little application in thsi area, but I really do think this is changing, just that the changes haven't propagated (no pun intended) to the consumer marketplace yet.
Are you talking about complete cards, or the core logic when you compare power consumption? The power consumption of the signal processing logic is small compared to the power consumed by the transmitter power amplifier. Consequently the power consumption doesn't really depend on whether the system is Bluetooth or 802.11.
If a Bluetooth system has a lower power consumption, it's because it has a smaller power amplifier. Reduce the transmitted power of an 802.11 system nearer to that of a Bluetooth system, and the system power consumption becomes comparable to Bluetooth.
> would you use 802.11 for a mouse or an RF keyfob for your car?
That's where it is going in the future. Most people think of chipsets and WLANs when they think of 802.11, but among other things the future for it is 'embedded', where an 802.11 block is just a block in a larger on chip system.
Slashdot Mirror
The preferential system is also used in the Australian senate, where there are no boundaries within states. Here we see minority parties (Greens, Democrats, independents) getting seats and so having a say in politics. This is why the senate is so important in Australia, as a house of review. In my opinion, the preferential system works well for multiple parties, despite its complexity.
Presumambly LDAP is included as part of the 'world wide web' (including http, ftp, ...) as distinct from the 'http web', so they cannot even claim the dubious novelty of just sustituting LDAP with HTTP?
Fully agree! Sloppy use of language on my part! As a science graduate I should be more careful. I'm going to use the excuse that I am actually an engineer first and a scientist second. :-)
Thanks for that little bright spot in my day...
Once SCO has been hung, drawn and quartered, MS and friends wheel out the FUD machine big time and say "See, this is what happens to those who use Linux, the FSF and the GPL".
If this theory is correct, the Free Software community needs to be ready to counter such a follow up. The Free Software community needs to be empasising that SCO broke the law and that is why they went bankrupt, not because they dealt with Linux. At the same time, lots of Linux success stories are needed, so the community can counter with, "No, this is really what hapens to those who use Linux" (ie. success)
for this printer willbe when it can produce a printed circuit board. Then I'll buy one!
How about requiring them to be a Debian maintainer? ;-)
My mistake. I meant to say 'The only way to read email from a windows user will be to get a copy of Windows'. Do you think MS will be releasing a Linux version of the email reading program?
>Microsoft says a free viewing program will be available for those who receive a protected document but are not using Office 2003.
Why would one need a special reader if email standards are adhered to? Presumably this is an attempt to hijack the email system by getting all Office users to send email in a format which is unreadable by non-Office users. The only way to read email from a windows user will be to get a copy of Office 2003.
Personally I will be replying to all such emails with a polite message that the message got garbled in transmision and could the sender please fix the problem in their system.
In a moral sense I agree with you. Unfortunately for Free Software campaigners (and Cisco), in a legal sense the house is 'owned', and the winner of Cisco/Linksys vs. the FSF will be decided by the law, not morals.
> But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners.
The problem with this argument is that the house isn't yours to burn down, or at the least was built with building materials that you did not have permision to use!
I suspect the author's prejudice (paranoia?) is displayed by the closing comment. Such a pity Fores publishes such drivel.
It seems like an ideal Free Software project: low cost hardware, high cost of writing the software, very smart brains required to write the software...
What about modifying Linux's WiFi drivers to perform passive radar (or just running it as a background application on top of the WiFi diver)? Someway would have to be found to distribute accurate time over the Internet so samples coming out of the WiFi card could be timestamped. Perhaps GPS could be used to locate each antenna,or it could be inferred from the received signals? The processing could be done in a distributed manner (like SETI@home) with every antenna (WiFi card) owner cotributing to the processing. Results could be fed to a distributed network, such as a Freenet, so anyone in the world can view the results on a world map? It's very 'pie in the sky' but I don't see any impossibilities there (only major challenges).
Why should those with money have all the fun? Tracking all those UFOs coming out of airforce bases would make a fun hobby.
You know, the one with a knob for each player, two paddles on the screen, a square ball and that great 'blip' sound. Still fun.
Come to think of it, I will have to try running it into my TV grabber card so I can play it in a window on my Linux box....
It was quite strange when I visited Finland to see a pile of gumboots sitting in the corner with a big 'NOKIA' brand on the front. Apparently every Finn has a pair of Nokia gumboots.
in common with some secretaries, the computer will use its knowledge of its master's foibles to manipulate its 'master'? It'll start with convincing you to buy overpriced fund raising chocolates, then move onto presents for the staff, buy that new software that will make your life easier (written by the same company that wrote the secretary, of course), and so on. I can hear the marketroids salivating already.
The research/reward system discriminates against those who debunk myths. If you prove something to be false you can't patent it and make a pot of money off it. Meanwhile, your hard work has eliminated 'red herrings' allowing others to advance more quickly. Those 'successful' people then take out patents, arrived at more quickly as a consequence of your results, and prevent you from reaping the fruits of your own labour.
To add insult to injury, other (small minded?) people then denigrate you for being 'unsuccessful'.
It's interesting that once the flashy grapics is stripped away, today's user interface looks (and functions?) basically the same as yesterdays. Perhaps much of what we call 'advances in user interface' is just eye candy, or am I being deceived by appearances?
Anyone see the irony that he pretty well recovered the amount of the fine in one hit when he went open source? I guess he must be well ahead by now.
Or an 11Mbit link to your NASCAR? Okay, you caught me, it's actually an AusCar!
Copyright (C) 2002-2003 Friendster, Inc. All rights reserved. Patent Pending
I wonder if Slashdot's 'friends and foes' feature is prior art?
The jet engine itself cannot be covered by the GPL, as you cannot copyright an actual jet engine. The GPL would only apply to the plans which are used to build the engine. Presumambly if you gave the plans to someone, you would also have to give them soft copies. Also it would prevent you from only giving them half the plans, and obscuring som detail, as the GPL requires that a work be distributed as a whole or not at all.
Yes, he is the guy of DIY cruise missile fame.
Just about every company out there uses BSD licensed code (including Microsoft). If the BSD license is ruled invalid, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people out there! I can't see the US government allowing the destruction of MS windows.
See my comments about power consumption in response to another poster (same thread).
> the session/discovery stuff isn't as good,
Just means that stuff has to live in the application layer.
> if it reaches much more than a metre or so it's TOO FAR
Then reduce the transmitted output power. There's nothing to say that 802.11 has to transmit with an output power of the order of 100mW.
> It really doesn't matter what the inventor wanted 802
Unless the inventor is now a senior executive in one of the largest (the largest?) WLAN players.
Okay my original post was in fairly 'in your face', but trust me, 802.11 is suited to low power applications. I agree it currently sees little application in thsi area, but I really do think this is changing, just that the changes haven't propagated (no pun intended) to the consumer marketplace yet.
If a Bluetooth system has a lower power consumption, it's because it has a smaller power amplifier. Reduce the transmitted power of an 802.11 system nearer to that of a Bluetooth system, and the system power consumption becomes comparable to Bluetooth.
That's where it is going in the future. Most people think of chipsets and WLANs when they think of 802.11, but among other things the future for it is 'embedded', where an 802.11 block is just a block in a larger on chip system.