a lot of emergency management agencies are moving up to 800 mhz systems
from the great wiki:
# 806-824 MHz: Public safety and commercial 2-way (formerly TV channels 70-72) # 824-851 MHz: Cellular A & B franchises, terminal (mobile phone) (formerly TV channels 73-77) # 851-869 MHz: Public safety and commercial 2-way (formerly TV channels 77-80) # 869-896 MHz: Cellular A & B franchises, base station (formerly TV channels 80-83)
it'd be very hard to filter out 824-851 and 869-896, at least passively, while still allowing the public safety frequencies to remain in use.
not entirely true. itunes music purchased before the drm-removal is still drm'ed. its an extra 30 cents a song to upgrade it to itunes plus (and get the corresponding 128kbps-->256kbps upgrade).
from what i understand there have been rejections of apps which crash spontaneously while running. and they do have a reputation of rejecting apps that use unpublished api's. how much deeper they go i don't know.
ahh but there is a difference. nuclear weapons serve one and only one purpose: destruction. (of what, leave that to your own devices. could be life, could be property, you get the idea).
a jailbroken iphone, on the other hand, may serve the purpose of destruction, but there are a lot more useful purposes than that.
The reason that I myself am willing to download and install an app onto my iPhone is because I am sure that Apple has done some QA on it, and that the author values their relationship with Apple and so would not likely risk it by embedding malware. This QA that Apple provides is of great value.
i could agree with you if apple's decision to reject an app was based solely on qa grounds. when it gets to the "we're rejecting this app because it competes with an app we're giving away free with the os anyway", or "we're rejecting this app because it uses too much wireless data" or any of the myriad other reasons given for app rejection which have nothing to do with app quality is where i have to object.
Second, most corporate or educational institutions require their staff to sign over ownership of intellectual work products as a basis for employment in the first place.
actually, there is a rising trend at educational institutions to go the opposite direction, as far as ip that is academic in nature. the university of minnesota in 2007 adopted new copyright guidelines in which "The University shall maintain the strong academic tradition that vests copyright ownership of academic works in the faculty."
We researchers submit and review for free because otherwise the journals would stop publishing. Physical Review, for example, publishes something like 150000 pages of articles a year -- and that costs money. Yes, they charge libraries a lot, but financially, they're luck to break even each year.
From their copyright FAQ:
Why should I transfer copyright to APS?
<snip> This permits APS to publish the article and to defend against improper use (or even theft) of the article. It also permits APS to mount the article online and to use the article in other forms or media, such as PROLA. <snip>
while i imagine the same "logic" is applied nearly universally among all publishers, all i can say to this is what a bunch of crap. aps doesn't need copyright to publish the article. a non-exclusive license suffices for such purposes. as to defending against improper use, aps will have a copyright on the collective work in which the paper is published and can pursue copyright violations in that regard, and the author of a published paper can pursue his or he own defense against improper use. again, aps merely needs a license to "mount" the article online or use it in other forms or media. such a license can even be fashioned to be broad enough to encompass technologies not yet conceived of.
this leads me to believe that aps has some other motive for requiring copyright assignment before publication.
Also, YFA indicates "Data from the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and USEC, a uranium enrichment company, indicate that enriching the amount of uranium needed to fuel 1,000-megawatt reactor for a year using the most efficient method can require 5,500 megawatt hours of gas- and coal-fired electricity (a 10-megawatt power plant running for 550 hours).*"
in other words, for the math-challenged grandparent post, the 1,000 MW reactor would have to run at full load for 5.5 hours for every year worth of enriched fuel it consumes. The remaining 8,754.5 hours of the year can be used to do other things. like power homes and businesses.
having just been in dc last week, that's exactly what i thought; the national museum of natural history has one or two on display, with comments to the effect that yup, killed the ants.
i don't buy for a minute that a 1 ton highly fuel efficient car puts more wear on the roads than a 3 ton suv or a 18-wheeler. generally speaking heavier vehicles consume more fuel than lighter vehicles do. coincidentally, heavier vehicles also tend to consume more energy (note that i didn't say fuel) per unit distance than lighter vehicles do. thus if the problem is falling gas tax revenue because vehicles are becoming more fuel efficient (a goal which we should be embracing), the solution is to increase the gas tax, and come up with some way of metering plug-in electric's electricity usage.
Craftsman would like to have a word with you regarding their EULA on wrenches.
says he who's never used craftsman tools for what they were never intended for. from my own experience, use of flat bladed screwdrivers as chisels or pry-bars comes to mind, as does bending the head of a wrench about 45 degrees because it was more convenient to work on the car's engine that way than to go to sears and get the right tool for the job.
sears has always been great to me about that sort of thing, even when the tool shows clear signs of abuse. when they say satisfaction guaranteed, they really mean it, even if the reason you're not satisfied is because the tool was being used for something it was never intended to be used for.
so, the city council, having been duly elected by the citizenry of the city, not being encumbered (as others have pointed out) by a constitution limiting the power of the federal government or the state government, sets forth a referendum to the electorate of said city, presumably in accordance with the laws of said city, and the city overwhelmingly approves it. provided this action isn't limited in the city's charter how is this not within the law of that the city is allowed to do? it seems to me that california has voter sponsored propositions on its ballots all the time, the results of which enable or curtail the government from performing specific acts. again, that's within the laws of the state of california.
if you read the 10th amendment, you'll learn that the powers not granted by it to the government, nor proscribed by it to the states, are reserved to the states or the people. that's at the federal level. anything else is down at the state level.
For a project like municipal wifi, where you could have significant swaths of people who neither use nor benefit from it in any way, I submit that the percentage probably ought to be 100%.
i guess you'd have to take a look at what exactly constitutes a benefit. if the competition from the municipal system causes broadband rates to be lower across the board, then the beneficiaries of the system are more than just those who use it. everyone in the town with a broadband connection benefits, and the number of people with broadband connections will increase, that number probably being larger than those who will connect to the municipal broadband.
except that in this case, 74% of the electorate in the city voted to authorize the construction of this network. in effect, creating a municipal internet service is not only the right of the city of monticello in this case, but its responsibility.
Does this mean that kids are 39.6% smarter than we thought they were? They just needed a reason to show it?
for a good chunk of them, the answer is probably yes. while the scores of standardized tests are very important for the staff and administration of schools, to your typical student, test day is effectively a day off of class; the results of the test are meaningless to them. if there's an incentive to do well on the tests, the results of said tests become less meaningless, and the students will demonstrate the knowledge they possess to the best of their ability, in an effort to obtain the reward.
an interesting (to me, anyway) side effect is that so long as the schools are teaching the tests in the same way as they were before the rewards went into effect, this removes a large argument from anti-public-education blowhards that the education system is ineffective in teaching the students. one can assume that if the students do well on the tests when paid to do so, the teachers are effectively teaching the material. not only that, but they are teaching it in a manner by which the students can learn it.
I have heard that when you sign an agreement, you give them the right to license out your music. (Including to yourself it would seem. I am trying to determine how this works where.)
In the US at least, unless you transfer all rights to them, you would retain those rights, without having to obtain a license from ascap for it (since ascap is the one licensed by you to collect).
As another poster mentioned earlier, often the actual rights aren't owned by the artist, but by some corporation with whom the artist has signed, and in turn, that corp has signed with ascap. In that case, since you don't own the rights, you would have to have a license from either ascap or the corp. owning the rights.
It's like a professional programmer. Barring any work for hire rules or an explicit assignment of copyright, anything you write is your own and you are free to license it, allow others to sublicense it, or reuse it as you see fit. If rules or other agreement transfer ownership to an employer, the employer owns the rights and you would need a license from them to reuse the code.
Slashdot Mirror
parent teacher conferences.
they don't always happen on non-school days, particularly with students who have individualized educational plans. i know. i've been to a few.
a lot of emergency management agencies are moving up to 800 mhz systems
from the great wiki:
# 806-824 MHz: Public safety and commercial 2-way (formerly TV channels 70-72)
# 824-851 MHz: Cellular A & B franchises, terminal (mobile phone) (formerly TV channels 73-77)
# 851-869 MHz: Public safety and commercial 2-way (formerly TV channels 77-80)
# 869-896 MHz: Cellular A & B franchises, base station (formerly TV channels 80-83)
it'd be very hard to filter out 824-851 and 869-896, at least passively, while still allowing the public safety frequencies to remain in use.
says the /. poster with a 7-digit uid.
now, back in my day, the fire alarm was some idiot running through the halls shouting the place was on fire
iTunes music no longer has DRM
not entirely true. itunes music purchased before the drm-removal is still drm'ed. its an extra 30 cents a song to upgrade it to itunes plus (and get the corresponding 128kbps-->256kbps upgrade).
from what i understand there have been rejections of apps which crash spontaneously while running. and they do have a reputation of rejecting apps that use unpublished api's. how much deeper they go i don't know.
point conceded. however, beyond destruction and the threat of mutually assured destruction nuclear weapons don't have many other uses.
ahh but there is a difference. nuclear weapons serve one and only one purpose: destruction. (of what, leave that to your own devices. could be life, could be property, you get the idea).
a jailbroken iphone, on the other hand, may serve the purpose of destruction, but there are a lot more useful purposes than that.
The reason that I myself am willing to download and install an app onto my iPhone is because I am sure that Apple has done some QA on it, and that the author values their relationship with Apple and so would not likely risk it by embedding malware. This QA that Apple provides is of great value.
i could agree with you if apple's decision to reject an app was based solely on qa grounds. when it gets to the "we're rejecting this app because it competes with an app we're giving away free with the os anyway", or "we're rejecting this app because it uses too much wireless data" or any of the myriad other reasons given for app rejection which have nothing to do with app quality is where i have to object.
Second, most corporate or educational institutions require their staff to sign over ownership of intellectual work products as a basis for employment in the first place.
actually, there is a rising trend at educational institutions to go the opposite direction, as far as ip that is academic in nature. the university of minnesota in 2007 adopted new copyright guidelines in which "The University shall maintain the strong academic tradition that vests copyright ownership of academic works in the faculty."
We researchers submit and review for free because otherwise the journals would stop publishing. Physical Review, for example, publishes something like 150000 pages of articles a year -- and that costs money. Yes, they charge libraries a lot, but financially, they're luck to break even each year.
From their copyright FAQ:
Why should I transfer copyright to APS?
<snip> This permits APS to publish the article and to defend against improper use (or even theft) of the article. It also permits APS to mount the article online and to use the article in other forms or media, such as PROLA. <snip>
while i imagine the same "logic" is applied nearly universally among all publishers, all i can say to this is what a bunch of crap. aps doesn't need copyright to publish the article. a non-exclusive license suffices for such purposes. as to defending against improper use, aps will have a copyright on the collective work in which the paper is published and can pursue copyright violations in that regard, and the author of a published paper can pursue his or he own defense against improper use. again, aps merely needs a license to "mount" the article online or use it in other forms or media. such a license can even be fashioned to be broad enough to encompass technologies not yet conceived of.
this leads me to believe that aps has some other motive for requiring copyright assignment before publication.
Also, YFA indicates "Data from the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and USEC, a uranium enrichment company, indicate that enriching the amount of uranium needed to fuel 1,000-megawatt reactor for a year using the most efficient method can require 5,500 megawatt hours of gas- and coal-fired electricity (a 10-megawatt power plant running for 550 hours).*"
in other words, for the math-challenged grandparent post, the 1,000 MW reactor would have to run at full load for 5.5 hours for every year worth of enriched fuel it consumes. The remaining 8,754.5 hours of the year can be used to do other things. like power homes and businesses.
Those weren't ant holes, but a pair of a-holes.
you only managed to find two?
having just been in dc last week, that's exactly what i thought; the national museum of natural history has one or two on display, with comments to the effect that yup, killed the ants.
i don't buy for a minute that a 1 ton highly fuel efficient car puts more wear on the roads than a 3 ton suv or a 18-wheeler. generally speaking heavier vehicles consume more fuel than lighter vehicles do. coincidentally, heavier vehicles also tend to consume more energy (note that i didn't say fuel) per unit distance than lighter vehicles do. thus if the problem is falling gas tax revenue because vehicles are becoming more fuel efficient (a goal which we should be embracing), the solution is to increase the gas tax, and come up with some way of metering plug-in electric's electricity usage.
newspapers and magazines register under the principle of group registration and the fee for the group is 70 bucks.
There's no reason why someone can't write an OS that requires apps to be signed in some way and put conditions on the apps being signed.
and microsoft, in fact, did something very similar to that, by requiring 64-bit drivers for vista to be signed.
Craftsman would like to have a word with you regarding their EULA on wrenches.
says he who's never used craftsman tools for what they were never intended for. from my own experience, use of flat bladed screwdrivers as chisels or pry-bars comes to mind, as does bending the head of a wrench about 45 degrees because it was more convenient to work on the car's engine that way than to go to sears and get the right tool for the job.
sears has always been great to me about that sort of thing, even when the tool shows clear signs of abuse. when they say satisfaction guaranteed, they really mean it, even if the reason you're not satisfied is because the tool was being used for something it was never intended to be used for.
so, the city council, having been duly elected by the citizenry of the city, not being encumbered (as others have pointed out) by a constitution limiting the power of the federal government or the state government, sets forth a referendum to the electorate of said city, presumably in accordance with the laws of said city, and the city overwhelmingly approves it. provided this action isn't limited in the city's charter how is this not within the law of that the city is allowed to do? it seems to me that california has voter sponsored propositions on its ballots all the time, the results of which enable or curtail the government from performing specific acts. again, that's within the laws of the state of california.
if you read the 10th amendment, you'll learn that the powers not granted by it to the government, nor proscribed by it to the states, are reserved to the states or the people. that's at the federal level. anything else is down at the state level.
For a project like municipal wifi, where you could have significant swaths of people who neither use nor benefit from it in any way, I submit that the percentage probably ought to be 100%.
i guess you'd have to take a look at what exactly constitutes a benefit. if the competition from the municipal system causes broadband rates to be lower across the board, then the beneficiaries of the system are more than just those who use it. everyone in the town with a broadband connection benefits, and the number of people with broadband connections will increase, that number probably being larger than those who will connect to the municipal broadband.
of course, I'm kind of hardened in this case, since qwest recently told me that i could only get the 7mbps service out of the remote dslam i'm connected to if i use qwest.net as an isp, instead of the third party dsl isp i'm using. nevermind the fact that if i were able to receive a connection direct from the co, i'd be able to choose my isp.
except that in this case, 74% of the electorate in the city voted to authorize the construction of this network. in effect, creating a municipal internet service is not only the right of the city of monticello in this case, but its responsibility.
they're not. the reason this is news is not because they made a ruling on the matter, but because they refused to hear the matter altogether.
i've moved sim cards between phones on at&t as long as i've been on the gsm network.
including when i've purchased phones from ebay.
back in the tdms day, you had to register your imei with the new phone, but with the gsm switch those days are gone.
Does this mean that kids are 39.6% smarter than we thought they were? They just needed a reason to show it?
for a good chunk of them, the answer is probably yes. while the scores of standardized tests are very important for the staff and administration of schools, to your typical student, test day is effectively a day off of class; the results of the test are meaningless to them. if there's an incentive to do well on the tests, the results of said tests become less meaningless, and the students will demonstrate the knowledge they possess to the best of their ability, in an effort to obtain the reward.
an interesting (to me, anyway) side effect is that so long as the schools are teaching the tests in the same way as they were before the rewards went into effect, this removes a large argument from anti-public-education blowhards that the education system is ineffective in teaching the students. one can assume that if the students do well on the tests when paid to do so, the teachers are effectively teaching the material. not only that, but they are teaching it in a manner by which the students can learn it.
according to the ascap articles of association, its a non exclusive license for ascap to sublicense the work. the creator retains ownership.
I have heard that when you sign an agreement, you give them the right to license out your music. (Including to yourself it would seem. I am trying to determine how this works where.)
In the US at least, unless you transfer all rights to them, you would retain those rights, without having to obtain a license from ascap for it (since ascap is the one licensed by you to collect).
As another poster mentioned earlier, often the actual rights aren't owned by the artist, but by some corporation with whom the artist has signed, and in turn, that corp has signed with ascap. In that case, since you don't own the rights, you would have to have a license from either ascap or the corp. owning the rights.
It's like a professional programmer. Barring any work for hire rules or an explicit assignment of copyright, anything you write is your own and you are free to license it, allow others to sublicense it, or reuse it as you see fit. If rules or other agreement transfer ownership to an employer, the employer owns the rights and you would need a license from them to reuse the code.