Just make it a companywide policy. Any large company is going to have an employee handbook and a method for updating it. Make it crystal clear that any installation of rogue access points will result in immediate termination and referral to the FBI.
Besides, somehow I doubt the person asking this question to slashdot was the CEO or CIO of a large company.
Trusting your employees to only open attachments that are safe is one thing.
Trusting your employees not to provide access to company resources to unauthorized persons is another.
Exactly, and trusting your employees not to set up rogue access points is an instance of the latter. State in no uncertain terms when someone joins your company that setting up rogue access points will result in immediate termination and referral to the FBI.
Can't most switches be set up to only allow a single MAC address to connect to a port? Why detect when you can prevent? (Well, maybe you want to weed out bad employees or something, sort of a network honeypot).
You get the feeling that the company is just going to take advantage of you no matter how and what happens. You get together with the rest of the department for a 'fsck this company' meeting and decide to walk out.
I wonder how many PHBs just thought to themselves, "oh shit, I hope he's not talking about us."
And how is this different from how employees treated employers during the economic boom? Employees demanded unheard benifits and jumped ship as soon as they found another job that pays more.
Yep, and if you're not under contract, that's exactly what you should do. Back in 1998 I left Hewlett Packard to go work for a startup internet company. Now HP had a good track record with its employees in the pre-Fiorina days, but at the same time I was an at-will employee, so I offered my employer up to a month's notice, which they promptly took (fortunately the startup was very flexible about my start date).
Maybe I felt a little bit guilty at first, but after the bubble burst good old HP shut down the entire NJ site and laid off just about every one of my former co-workers. They offered decent severance packages, which is more than most companies would do, but they certainly didn't live up to their previous records.
That's just the way it works. You're supposed to give your two weeks notice when you leave, and they're supposed to give you two weeks severance pay when they get rid of you. Some people or companies give more, some give less, but unless you're under contract, you can do whatever you want guilt-free as long as you give a bit of notice.
Organizing a mass-exodus with no notice. Well, that should be saved for those special companies that truly deserve it. As long as you're an exempt employee under no contract, raising your amount of work doesn't qualify. (I don't think they can legally require you to work 50-60 hours, since requiring you to work certain hours would probably make you non-exempt, check with a lawyer though, if you're actually going to hold them to that). (They can, of course, legally give you 50-60 hours of work each week).
Here's the catch. The work must be licensed by the copyright owner. This seems to be a contradiction. Who has to have the license, and what kind of license must it be?
I believe that means that the work must be licensed by the transmitter. In other words, if it's a bootleg transmission that you're rebroadcasting, that's not legitimate.
Of course, this isn't legal advice, because I'm not a lawyer, and the whole section is kind of confusing to me.
I would think someone could get around this by allowing a "patron" to enjoy listening to whatever music they wanted and it just so happened that the rest of the audience "had" to listen to it.
Nope, then the patron would be guilty of copyright infringement, and the establishment would be guilty of contributory and vicarious copyright infringment.
 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:
(5)(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), communication of a transmission embodying a performance or display of a work by the public reception of the transmission on a single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes, unless -
(i) a direct charge is made to see or hear the transmission; or
(ii) the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public;
(B) communication by an establishment of a transmission or retransmission embodying a performance or display of a nondramatic musical work intended to be received by the general public, originated by a radio or television broadcast station licensed as such by the Federal Communications Commission, or, if an audiovisual transmission, by a cable system or satellite carrier, if-
(ii) in the case of a food service or drinking establishment, either the establishment in which the communication occurs has less than 3,750 gross square feet of space (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose), or the establishment in which the communication occurs has 3,750 gross square feet of space or more (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose) and-
(I) if the performance is by audio means only, the performance is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space; or
(II) if the performance or display is by audiovisual means, any visual portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than 1 audiovisual device is located in any 1 room, and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space;
(iii) no direct charge is made to see or hear the transmission or retransmission;
(iv) the transmission or retransmission is not further transmitted beyond the establishment where it is received; and
(v) the transmission or retransmission is licensed by the copyright owner of the work so publicly performed or displayed;
Extensions of your argument of "if they screw up the electronics, then they should be banned", would be if they can potentially screw up pace-makers like microwaves can, then they should be banned from facilities which may have people who use pace-makers.
Sure, why not? Is there evidence that cell phones can do this?
The problem isn't the celphone.
Right. The problem is the use of the cellphone in a dangerous manner.
Banning the celphones does not negate the risk, only mitigates it.
Huh? How does banning the cellphone not negate the risk?
A laptop, a walkman, a walkie-talkie, or even just an electronic toy could cause a problem.
Then they all should be banned.
The issue is that the planes are no longer up to spec with regards to the types of broadcasts and EM emitting devices which are present today.
OK. That's fine. And one day that'll be fixed, I'm sure. But in the mean time, we shouldn't have these dangerous devices in the passenger compartment of the plane.
Banning phones with regards to the planes just means you remove one source of interference. You haven't made the plane itself any safer.
You haven't made the plane safer, but you've made the flight safer.
The phone activates any site that receives its signal
That's the change I'm suggesting we make.
When the phone is seen by hundreds of sites, they can't communicate between themselves fast enough to arbitrate effectively, especially if the phone is traveling at several hundred miles an hour.
For what reason can't the sites communicate fast enough? Several hundred miles an hour is significantly less than the speed of light.
Further, the cellular bands are divided up into a small number of frequencies (or their spread-spectrum analogues).
That, on the other hand, is a much bigger problem.
Now, add in the fact that it's quite likely that a phone at 37,000 feet will be seen by multiple networks, which may or may not be cooperating, and you've got a REAL mess on your hands.
Clearly they are cooperating. I can't just make a phone call from any cell site without permission from my carrier, after all.
The only way you'll get an appreciable "Dopppler" shift on your cell phone signal is if you're travelling at close to the speed of light
Yeah, cause otherwise they could use these things, let me call them "radar guns," to measure the doppler shift of a radio signal bouncing off a car going just 70 mph.
To anyone that desperate to use their cell phone on a plane - would you prefer to pay the exorbitant sky-phone rates, or the increase in ticket prices introduced to cover the installation of the shielding (and test procedures) necessary to make flight systems safe in the presence of cell-phone caused interference?
Neither. I'd rather they install at least two sky-phones in each plane. Have the cost of the phones covered by two independent companies, which could then compete on rates.
In other words, continue to ban cell phones, but lower the sky-phone rates to non-monopoly prices.
Oh, and if cell phones really can screw up the electronics, then cell phones need to be banned from flights. Not just turned off, banned.
Except for the fact that bombs aren't allowed on planes, but electronic devices are. Maybe we should think about disallowing mobile phones as well. Better safe than sorry.
That is why this is not a copyright issue, gaim has not problems in you writing a plugin that uses openSSL, just how it interfaces with gaim (hence a license issue).
Why do they have a problem with it?
Regardless, it is both a license issue and a copyright issue. You don't need to follow the license, except for the fact that the program is copyrighted.
Slashdot Mirror
Just make it a companywide policy. Any large company is going to have an employee handbook and a method for updating it. Make it crystal clear that any installation of rogue access points will result in immediate termination and referral to the FBI.
Besides, somehow I doubt the person asking this question to slashdot was the CEO or CIO of a large company.
Because I trust my fellow employees not to do anything deliberately malicious.
So tell them that hooking up a rogue access point is deliberately malicious.
Trusting your employees to only open attachments that are safe is one thing.
Trusting your employees not to provide access to company resources to unauthorized persons is another.
Exactly, and trusting your employees not to set up rogue access points is an instance of the latter. State in no uncertain terms when someone joins your company that setting up rogue access points will result in immediate termination and referral to the FBI.
Can't most switches be set up to only allow a single MAC address to connect to a port? Why detect when you can prevent? (Well, maybe you want to weed out bad employees or something, sort of a network honeypot).
Fine, then you can't trust your employees. So I ask again, why does it matter if non-employees have access?
If you can't trust your employees, then why does it matter if non-employees have access?
You get the feeling that the company is just going to take advantage of you no matter how and what happens. You get together with the rest of the department for a 'fsck this company' meeting and decide to walk out.
I wonder how many PHBs just thought to themselves, "oh shit, I hope he's not talking about us."
And how is this different from how employees treated employers during the economic boom? Employees demanded unheard benifits and jumped ship as soon as they found another job that pays more.
Yep, and if you're not under contract, that's exactly what you should do. Back in 1998 I left Hewlett Packard to go work for a startup internet company. Now HP had a good track record with its employees in the pre-Fiorina days, but at the same time I was an at-will employee, so I offered my employer up to a month's notice, which they promptly took (fortunately the startup was very flexible about my start date).
Maybe I felt a little bit guilty at first, but after the bubble burst good old HP shut down the entire NJ site and laid off just about every one of my former co-workers. They offered decent severance packages, which is more than most companies would do, but they certainly didn't live up to their previous records.
That's just the way it works. You're supposed to give your two weeks notice when you leave, and they're supposed to give you two weeks severance pay when they get rid of you. Some people or companies give more, some give less, but unless you're under contract, you can do whatever you want guilt-free as long as you give a bit of notice.
Organizing a mass-exodus with no notice. Well, that should be saved for those special companies that truly deserve it. As long as you're an exempt employee under no contract, raising your amount of work doesn't qualify. (I don't think they can legally require you to work 50-60 hours, since requiring you to work certain hours would probably make you non-exempt, check with a lawyer though, if you're actually going to hold them to that). (They can, of course, legally give you 50-60 hours of work each week).
Here's the catch. The work must be licensed by the copyright owner. This seems to be a contradiction. Who has to have the license, and what kind of license must it be?
I believe that means that the work must be licensed by the transmitter. In other words, if it's a bootleg transmission that you're rebroadcasting, that's not legitimate.
Of course, this isn't legal advice, because I'm not a lawyer, and the whole section is kind of confusing to me.
This appears to be the exact thing prohibited as "public performance" in the FBI warning and elsewhere.
Hopefully that elsewhere includes some sort of law, since FBI warnings are not legally binding.
I would think someone could get around this by allowing a "patron" to enjoy listening to whatever music they wanted and it just so happened that the rest of the audience "had" to listen to it.
Nope, then the patron would be guilty of copyright infringement, and the establishment would be guilty of contributory and vicarious copyright infringment.
If you want to read about the doppler effect actually read the document you linked to!
"Police officers use the Doppler Effect to determine the speed of your car."
Doppler effect has nothing to do with this.
"The radar set measures the time it takes for the echo to arrive, as well as the Doppler shift of the echo."
"A police radar looks only for Doppler-shifted signals, and because the radar beam is tightly focused it hits only one car."
"Radar works by the Doppler effect except that it uses radio waves instead of sound waves."
"In radar where a moving target is involved, the signal undergoes the Doppler shift when impinging upon the target."
"The Doppler effect is also used in some forms of radar to measure the velocity of detected objects."
"Radar guns, for example, are based on the Doppler effect."
"Radar guns, for example use the Doppler effect to measure the speed of vehicles or other objects such as baseballs."
Want more?
I'm sure they're working on it. But what do you do in the mean time?
The faster the combined signal oscillates the faster the car is travelling towards it. This is easy to measure.
And it's called the doppler effect!
Extensions of your argument of "if they screw up the electronics, then they should be banned", would be if they can potentially screw up pace-makers like microwaves can, then they should be banned from facilities which may have people who use pace-makers.
Sure, why not? Is there evidence that cell phones can do this?
The problem isn't the celphone.
Right. The problem is the use of the cellphone in a dangerous manner.
Banning the celphones does not negate the risk, only mitigates it.
Huh? How does banning the cellphone not negate the risk?
A laptop, a walkman, a walkie-talkie, or even just an electronic toy could cause a problem.
Then they all should be banned.
The issue is that the planes are no longer up to spec with regards to the types of broadcasts and EM emitting devices which are present today.
OK. That's fine. And one day that'll be fixed, I'm sure. But in the mean time, we shouldn't have these dangerous devices in the passenger compartment of the plane.
Banning phones with regards to the planes just means you remove one source of interference. You haven't made the plane itself any safer.
You haven't made the plane safer, but you've made the flight safer.
The phone activates any site that receives its signal
That's the change I'm suggesting we make.
When the phone is seen by hundreds of sites, they can't communicate between themselves fast enough to arbitrate effectively, especially if the phone is traveling at several hundred miles an hour.
For what reason can't the sites communicate fast enough? Several hundred miles an hour is significantly less than the speed of light.
Further, the cellular bands are divided up into a small number of frequencies (or their spread-spectrum analogues).
That, on the other hand, is a much bigger problem.
Now, add in the fact that it's quite likely that a phone at 37,000 feet will be seen by multiple networks, which may or may not be cooperating, and you've got a REAL mess on your hands.
Clearly they are cooperating. I can't just make a phone call from any cell site without permission from my carrier, after all.
We should probably do both. Have random inspections for phones. Have detectors. All the stuff we do for bombs.
To "fix" the "problem", you'd have to throw it out and start over.
Or just set up phones (and possibly sites) so the phones don't activate more than a certain number of sites at once.
The only way you'll get an appreciable "Dopppler" shift on your cell phone signal is if you're travelling at close to the speed of light
Yeah, cause otherwise they could use these things, let me call them "radar guns," to measure the doppler shift of a radio signal bouncing off a car going just 70 mph.
The cellular network cannot deal well with this situation.
Fix the cellular network.
Right, by offering us cheap fares.
No, by offering you cheap fares, while us non-frequent-flyers pay for it with our taxes.
To anyone that desperate to use their cell phone on a plane - would you prefer to pay the exorbitant sky-phone rates, or the increase in ticket prices introduced to cover the installation of the shielding (and test procedures) necessary to make flight systems safe in the presence of cell-phone caused interference?
Neither. I'd rather they install at least two sky-phones in each plane. Have the cost of the phones covered by two independent companies, which could then compete on rates.
In other words, continue to ban cell phones, but lower the sky-phone rates to non-monopoly prices.
Oh, and if cell phones really can screw up the electronics, then cell phones need to be banned from flights. Not just turned off, banned.
Except for the fact that bombs aren't allowed on planes, but electronic devices are. Maybe we should think about disallowing mobile phones as well. Better safe than sorry.
That is why this is not a copyright issue, gaim has not problems in you writing a plugin that uses openSSL, just how it interfaces with gaim (hence a license issue).
Why do they have a problem with it?
Regardless, it is both a license issue and a copyright issue. You don't need to follow the license, except for the fact that the program is copyrighted.