My previous employer used to use their hubs and cascaded them into a network switch. The darn things kept losing track of what MAC addresses were hanging off them and refusing to route traffic.
Aside from what others have posted about using hubs, going stupid about MAC addresses is not the fault of the hubs; they simply repeat the traffic they receive to all their ports. The switches are what keep tabs on what MAC's are hanging off of which ports.
I should probably point out that I'm not questioning the survey results; I've played with iPhones, and damn straight they make the smartphone functions easily accessible. I'm just wondering if the survey gets into the reasoning of its results; whether they're more used because Apple has made them easy to use, or whether they're more convenient to use because the data plan is a requirement.
Compared to other smartphone users, iPhone users use more of their phone's capabilities, and more often.
While I'm certainly not going to argue with you that iphone users use the "smart" features more than other smartphone users, this statement has me wondering why iPhone users are more likely to use the capabilities. I've got an AT&T 8525, and I certainly don't use the features of it, at least not over the data network. Over the Wi-Fi absolutely, but I don't have a data package, and don't care to spend the extra $$ necessary to get a data package, and can live with that, since the phone does have WiFi. If, however, I were forced to have a data package, by having an iPhone, I'd definitely be more likely to use the "smart" features than I am now. That's just me, but I'd be very interested in seeing the reasons people use them more.
I can load just about anything I want into my private plane and fly anywhere in the US...
For now. Until they realize private pilots are using their private planes to subvert the wristband requirement and the company the program is subsidizing is going down the shitter.
my wife had aohell before we moved in and i addicted her to broadband. at the time they were still charging $2.95 a month for the email address, which we tried fruitlessly to cancel, and they perpetually billed her credit card $2.95 a month for the next few months after which the card expired.
needless to say she received paper bills for about 3 months threatening to cancel her account. they never did and subsequently decided to pass out @aim.com email addresses for free. there really is a bunch of nuts at the helm of aol.
That rationale is quite likely leftover from the days when barbers were also surgeons, and in that regard actually makes some sense, even if it is archaic and irrelevant to today's barber profession. (Surely there's more to the training than just that anyway).
That said, being a PI has absolutely nothing to do with computer repair and service. On any grounds. Except perhaps for the fact that when someone brings in a computer for repair, the technician "investigates" the problem.
You may not get anywhere with it, but it might be worth it to try and contact Yahoo's ad department about this. After all, its pretty worthless to be dumping a French ad to an American, and as a result a waste (however small) of the money the advertiser spent getting the ad to you in the first place. I'm suggesting Yahoo because you mention specifically their ads showing up, but if there are any others that do the same thing, it might be worth contacting them as well.
Yes, it does seem rather counterintuitive to most of us here who block ads, but they are a source of revenue for the likes of Yahoo, and if they can chip in some effort to more effectively target you, you've gone a ways towards solving the problem with the other sites.
Not only did it take a big man to do this, but the very fact that he did at least partially restored some of my faith in the judiciary of this country, after so many bone-headed mistakes on the part of judges that they don't admit.
By the way, if I make a recording of you speaking, guess who owns the copyright to that recording? Hint: it's not you. You are indeed correct. However I own the copyright to the content thereof, and your recording would be a derivative work of my speaking. Without a license from me to reproduce that recording, your ownership of the recording is worthless to you. Its just like an artist who covers an already published song. They don't go to the studio or the original artists to get permission, they go back to the songwriters for permission.
Oh, I'm not arguing that what they're doing is right at all. Like you said, they should have thought that through before deciding to use Linux. Those same rules apply to Tivo and anyone else, particularly those like Tivo who would have a significant amount of loss were someone to install new "firmware" that say, used the hardware but not the Tivo service itself.
In that case I'd argue that if the source redistribution requirement were held unenforceable, there's nothing else allowing the redistribution of the software, the rights for which would then fall back exclusively to the author.
I wouldn't say that "absolutely no value" is true, but Germany is under "Civil Law" rules, whereas most of the anglophone world is under "Common Law" rules. Under Common Law, like the US, UK, most of the Commonwealth, etc., case law plays a very important role in future cases, frequently much more so than the actual written law. With Civil Law, which is derived from Roman law, the written law has much more influence from the written law.
Exactly. I didn't read the GP as though the company was releasing the other companies' changes. I suppose in re-reading the post, that could be implied by the competitive advantage statement, but I didn't think of it that way initially. You, JetScootr, and Chandon are completely right once incorporating the external changes and redistributing the software. But that's why we all love the GPL in the first place:)
No one is forcing anyone to release their source code. The decision to use and incorporate software under the GPL into one's own proprietary software is solely the decision of the person/company incorporating it. The GPL is quite clear in stating that "nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License." Just as it is a choice to use proprietary software, it is a choice to modify and distribute GPL'ed software. The price paid for using proprietary software is frequently in the form of a licensing fee to the author of that software. Similarly, the price paid for modifying and distributing GPL'ed software is that you must also release your modifications to that software. If one does not wish to pay that price, one should not be consuming the software; a choice to consume the software is a choice to pay the associated price.
And it is perhaps that section alone which would cause me to use the GPL for software I write rather than one of the other licenses. The JMRI case referred to in the GP post definitely opened my eyes to that. And in the US at least, that potentially makes the infringer liable for a large sum of money for each violation. Which is why JMRI is appealing to get the case back in the domain of copyright.
IMO, this case from the Skype point of view, is more about protecting the hardware from what one might call "rogue" firmware developers. Compared to SIP based hardware, Skype-only equipment is very cheap. If a new firmware image could be built for the phone, it would be incredibly easy to use the phones with Asterisk rather than the intended Skype, simply by replacing the phone application with something that speaks SIP, since the hardware access pieces of the software would fall under the GPL, being part of the OS.
Igb, I'm assuming that you're talking about the sources with this. As long as they're the sole copyright holder, they don't have to release the source for those changes, as they aren't a licensee of their own software. If I as the author of some GPL'ed software choose to release a binary-only version of that software under some other license with a feature not encompassed in the GPL release, I'm free to do so. I certainly won't get much standing in the community for it, but I am free to do it. MySQL had plans to do this before Sun reversed that path.
And even that subject is on the ropes. We've all heard about the JMRI case around here. The current (and currently under appeal) voice of the US District Court claims that breaches of the license sound in contract law, not copyright law. Hopefully the Appeals Court will remedy the District Court Judge's cranio-rectal inversion, but I'm not holding my breath.
yes it does. what it *doesn't* provide is enhanced 911 (e911). i.e., the service that lets the 911 dispatcher have your location on screen before answering the call.
Actually, I've got an explicit exepmtion in my assignment agreement that permits me to work on external projects using company resources provided that it doesn't interfere with me doing my job or my co-workers doing their jobs. At my company, its in the standard assignment agreement, in addition to the pieces of California labor code. I won't say which company, but I do know that there's more than one person here who works for that same company.
Another good thing to do would be to check with the contract law of the state in which that contract applies. In certain states, (California and Minnesota are the ones I've signed agreements under) its agains public policy of that state (California actually requires employers to put the applicable statutes in the contract) to claim everything you do that isn't directly related to actual or demonstrably anticipated research and development of the company.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the fish children?
There. Fixed that for you.
My previous employer used to use their hubs and cascaded them into a network switch. The darn things kept losing track of what MAC addresses were hanging off them and refusing to route traffic.
Aside from what others have posted about using hubs, going stupid about MAC addresses is not the fault of the hubs; they simply repeat the traffic they receive to all their ports. The switches are what keep tabs on what MAC's are hanging off of which ports.
I should probably point out that I'm not questioning the survey results; I've played with iPhones, and damn straight they make the smartphone functions easily accessible. I'm just wondering if the survey gets into the reasoning of its results; whether they're more used because Apple has made them easy to use, or whether they're more convenient to use because the data plan is a requirement.
Compared to other smartphone users, iPhone users use more of their phone's capabilities, and more often.
While I'm certainly not going to argue with you that iphone users use the "smart" features more than other smartphone users, this statement has me wondering why iPhone users are more likely to use the capabilities. I've got an AT&T 8525, and I certainly don't use the features of it, at least not over the data network. Over the Wi-Fi absolutely, but I don't have a data package, and don't care to spend the extra $$ necessary to get a data package, and can live with that, since the phone does have WiFi. If, however, I were forced to have a data package, by having an iPhone, I'd definitely be more likely to use the "smart" features than I am now. That's just me, but I'd be very interested in seeing the reasons people use them more.
I can load just about anything I want into my private plane and fly anywhere in the US...
For now. Until they realize private pilots are using their private planes to subvert the wristband requirement and the company the program is subsidizing is going down the shitter.
my wife had aohell before we moved in and i addicted her to broadband. at the time they were still charging $2.95 a month for the email address, which we tried fruitlessly to cancel, and they perpetually billed her credit card $2.95 a month for the next few months after which the card expired.
needless to say she received paper bills for about 3 months threatening to cancel her account. they never did and subsequently decided to pass out @aim.com email addresses for free. there really is a bunch of nuts at the helm of aol.
yeah i kind of figured that. i just couldn't resist. :)
I'm sure some enterprising person could design a hat that resembles the south end of a north-bound mule.
Hey now. Don't exclude the GOP. We need south ends of north-bound elephants as well.
Ya know. Fair and balanced and all that.
That rationale is quite likely leftover from the days when barbers were also surgeons, and in that regard actually makes some sense, even if it is archaic and irrelevant to today's barber profession. (Surely there's more to the training than just that anyway).
That said, being a PI has absolutely nothing to do with computer repair and service. On any grounds. Except perhaps for the fact that when someone brings in a computer for repair, the technician "investigates" the problem.
You may not get anywhere with it, but it might be worth it to try and contact Yahoo's ad department about this. After all, its pretty worthless to be dumping a French ad to an American, and as a result a waste (however small) of the money the advertiser spent getting the ad to you in the first place. I'm suggesting Yahoo because you mention specifically their ads showing up, but if there are any others that do the same thing, it might be worth contacting them as well.
Yes, it does seem rather counterintuitive to most of us here who block ads, but they are a source of revenue for the likes of Yahoo, and if they can chip in some effort to more effectively target you, you've gone a ways towards solving the problem with the other sites.
Not only did it take a big man to do this, but the very fact that he did at least partially restored some of my faith in the judiciary of this country, after so many bone-headed mistakes on the part of judges that they don't admit.
Oh, I'm not arguing that what they're doing is right at all. Like you said, they should have thought that through before deciding to use Linux. Those same rules apply to Tivo and anyone else, particularly those like Tivo who would have a significant amount of loss were someone to install new "firmware" that say, used the hardware but not the Tivo service itself.
In that case I'd argue that if the source redistribution requirement were held unenforceable, there's nothing else allowing the redistribution of the software, the rights for which would then fall back exclusively to the author.
I wouldn't say that "absolutely no value" is true, but Germany is under "Civil Law" rules, whereas most of the anglophone world is under "Common Law" rules. Under Common Law, like the US, UK, most of the Commonwealth, etc., case law plays a very important role in future cases, frequently much more so than the actual written law. With Civil Law, which is derived from Roman law, the written law has much more influence from the written law.
Wikipedia has a really good writeup on the differences.
Exactly. I didn't read the GP as though the company was releasing the other companies' changes. I suppose in re-reading the post, that could be implied by the competitive advantage statement, but I didn't think of it that way initially. You, JetScootr, and Chandon are completely right once incorporating the external changes and redistributing the software. But that's why we all love the GPL in the first place :)
No one is forcing anyone to release their source code. The decision to use and incorporate software under the GPL into one's own proprietary software is solely the decision of the person/company incorporating it. The GPL is quite clear in stating that "nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License." Just as it is a choice to use proprietary software, it is a choice to modify and distribute GPL'ed software. The price paid for using proprietary software is frequently in the form of a licensing fee to the author of that software. Similarly, the price paid for modifying and distributing GPL'ed software is that you must also release your modifications to that software. If one does not wish to pay that price, one should not be consuming the software; a choice to consume the software is a choice to pay the associated price.
And it is perhaps that section alone which would cause me to use the GPL for software I write rather than one of the other licenses. The JMRI case referred to in the GP post definitely opened my eyes to that. And in the US at least, that potentially makes the infringer liable for a large sum of money for each violation. Which is why JMRI is appealing to get the case back in the domain of copyright.
IMO, this case from the Skype point of view, is more about protecting the hardware from what one might call "rogue" firmware developers. Compared to SIP based hardware, Skype-only equipment is very cheap. If a new firmware image could be built for the phone, it would be incredibly easy to use the phones with Asterisk rather than the intended Skype, simply by replacing the phone application with something that speaks SIP, since the hardware access pieces of the software would fall under the GPL, being part of the OS.
Igb, I'm assuming that you're talking about the sources with this. As long as they're the sole copyright holder, they don't have to release the source for those changes, as they aren't a licensee of their own software. If I as the author of some GPL'ed software choose to release a binary-only version of that software under some other license with a feature not encompassed in the GPL release, I'm free to do so. I certainly won't get much standing in the community for it, but I am free to do it. MySQL had plans to do this before Sun reversed that path.
from what i read in the original story, she wrote the motion to quash herself. so i would imagine not a whole lot.
And even that subject is on the ropes. We've all heard about the JMRI case around here. The current (and currently under appeal) voice of the US District Court claims that breaches of the license sound in contract law, not copyright law. Hopefully the Appeals Court will remedy the District Court Judge's cranio-rectal inversion, but I'm not holding my breath.
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/index.html/
yes it does. what it *doesn't* provide is enhanced 911 (e911). i.e., the service that lets the 911 dispatcher have your location on screen before answering the call.
Actually, I've got an explicit exepmtion in my assignment agreement that permits me to work on external projects using company resources provided that it doesn't interfere with me doing my job or my co-workers doing their jobs. At my company, its in the standard assignment agreement, in addition to the pieces of California labor code. I won't say which company, but I do know that there's more than one person here who works for that same company.
Another good thing to do would be to check with the contract law of the state in which that contract applies. In certain states, (California and Minnesota are the ones I've signed agreements under) its agains public policy of that state (California actually requires employers to put the applicable statutes in the contract) to claim everything you do that isn't directly related to actual or demonstrably anticipated research and development of the company.