You should check to make sure your Access Point isn't near any other equipment. It may be a combination of local appliance/computer and apartment complex noise that is making your network suffer.
Most users put their access points near their computers or entertainment centers -- don't do this. Put your cable modem and access point in part of your house with few appliances, and you should have better results.
On the other hand I only have 2 or 3 neighbors with access points and atleast one of them isn't clueless (WEP enabled)
Actually, there are some of us who are both clued and disable WEP. Block port 25, log the traffic, and it's the neighborly thing to do. bouncings's apartment: free wifi!
I suspect that anti-virus vendors are moving into the anti-spyware business. But maybe that's not good.
A while ago, I asked myself, who don't anti-virus companies research more preventative measures against worms and viruses, such as selling secure email clients. The conclusion I reached is that like the medical industry, the anti-virus industry profits from the symptoms, so preventative measures would reduce overall profits.
The same could be said for spyware removal tools. If spyware removal is now big business, there is a vested interest in the continued threat of spyware, so preventatives measures such as legislation and improved browser security, could face political interference from anti-spyware/anti-spam vendors.
Something to consider.
Announcement: Modification to the base XFree86(TM) license.
After a thorough re-examination of the XFree86(TM) license and reviewing how it fits in with the Project's long-stated licensing philosophy ("You can do what you like with the code except claim that you wrote it."), The XFree86 Project, Inc. has made some changes to its base license. This license review was prompted by a desire to ensure that XFree86 and its contributors are receiving due credit for their work. The text of the modified license can be found at http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html.
The purpose of these changes is to strengthen the "except claim you wrote it" clause of the Project's licensing philosophy regarding binary distributions of XFree86. While the original license covered this adequately for source code redistribution, it has always been lacking where binary redistribution was concerned.
This modified license falls easily within the long-standing XFree86 licensing policy, and so there has been no change to the classes of licenses acceptable for code contributed to XFree86. In fact, some contributions to XFree86 were covered by a similar license already. Contributors to XFree86 remain free to retain copyright on the code they contribute, and can also choose the license for their code within the long-standing XFree86 licensing policy.
The license change applies to the base XFree86 license, and to source files that explicitly carry a copyright notice in the name of The XFree86 Project, Inc. Copyrights and licenses in the names of others will not be affected by this change. Furthermore, only a subset of such files with an explicit copyright notice in the Project's name will initially carry the modified license, which is the core XFree86 components, and the source files where there is no explicit author list. The license in the remaining files with an XFree86 copyright will only be changed with permission from the listed authors.
The license change will be fully effective as of the 4.4.0 release. The initial draft of the changes will be included in 4.4.0 RC3 (4.3.99.903). A source diff showing the initial draft of the changes is being made available for review with this announcement, and can be found at . All XFree86 contributors are invited to review the changes, and notify us of errors and omissions so that they can be corrected before the 4.4.0 release. Such notifications, as well as comments about the licensing changes should be directed to the Forum@XFree86.org list. XFree86 contributors are also encouraged to review the license change, and let us know if they wish to make similar changes to licenses in their name.
* XFree86 is a trademark of The XFree86 Project, Inc., and is pending
registration.
Those narrow-minded souls who still believe that devout religious faith is incompatible with fervent scientific inquiry are probably unaware that Newton 'was a theologian who wrote well over a million words on Biblical subjects,' and who devoted 'something like 55 to 60 years' studying the Book of Revelation.
San Antonio's Transguide is probably the best of any of these systems. Much of the city's infrastructure is covered, the signs are accurate, provide travel times, and are posted everywhere.
I don't really think that this all has to do with techies not being good communicators. It has to do with engineers being defensive. Seriously. I've found that the most difficult to get along with engineers are also the ones who are woefully insecure about their skills and find the need to condescend not only to users, but other developers.
Get rid of the people who are defensive about their work, and you'll solve the problem.
Yes, most impressions on Java are based on the versions of Java they've used. And you know what, they should be. Perhaps you can create a clinical environment using certain JVM's on certain operating systems in which Java's performance and stability are acceptable.
But you know what? On my non-optimized platform with my web browser's somewhat old Sun JVM, Java is a dog. And the fact that there are a few successful java programs that may or may not work well on my PC is not persuasive.
Well, well, well. You have just described almost every IT project in the history of the world. First of all, drop this fantasy that actually designign a fully normalized, big up front schema with a big up front design will save you anything but an ego. Again, GET OVER IT.
I highly recommend you read about either Extreme Programming or Agile Software. Both of these schools of thought have come to the realization that you never want a big design up front. Keep your design as absolutely simple, dumb, and difficult to screw up as possible. Yes, those all go together. It's the ONLY way to design stable, quality software. No object-database wrapping engines, no XML Soap Servers, massive new framework. If you can possibly get by with some PHP scripts accessing a MySQL database in a weeks worth of time to get 50% the functionality, do it!
Let me say this again: If there is any way to make it simpler, do it. Stop whining, just make it simple.
Refactor your code later, only when needed. By keeping your design simple, you'll save time and those defects you were worring about will be minimal. Testing should be done either through unit tests or simple procedures.
And here's the most important part: give them WEEKLY releases. Never "postpone" a release. This lets them know where you are at in the project, and there will be no surprised or misleading estimates or anything. Never give estimates further out than a week, and always break down tasts into smaller tasks that will take less than a week.
And stop your bitching about not having enough time for a "top bottom" design. Top bottom designs are categorical failures.
Aside from another link to a slashdot article, it doesn't seem that there was an article in this case. But unless there was a contract signed in INK or normal copyright wouldn't grant the rights needed, the license agreement is void and null.
I'll say up front that I don't know how iTunes' license agreement works. I don't have a Mac, and I don't have iTunes. I'm not a lawyer, but I am an enthusiast who has followed the controversy of how companies are starting to pretend that users need license agreements to use software.
Just because something is in a license agreement, doesn't make it a legally binding agreement. On the contrary, almost all license agreements are void and users are in the full rights to ignore them.
The reason we have license agreements is that before an amendment to the copyright law, users did need license agreements to use software. When you buy copyrighted material, you can use it without an agreement. That's why it's legal to read a book without signing a contract -- you aren't copying the software, hence no contract is involved. But with software, in order to use the software, it must be copied several times. From floppy disk or punch card, to hard drive, to memory, and often back again. There was legal ambiguity as to whether simply using software infringed on a copyright. As such, a license agreement was included to grant users rights outside of normal copyright law. That is, a license agreement extended the users rights.
However, to allow software to be used, copyright law was eventually changed several times to allow for archiving software, and copying software as needed for execution. As such, no license agreement is needed to use software. So unless you want to do something outside of your basic rights as an end user, you do not need a license agreement.
Since you do not need a license agreement to user the program, and you never signed a license agreement, you do not agree to a license agreement to use the software. In a nutshell, that's why almost all license agreements are sham and your argument that a violation of a license agreement is not valid because no agreement was entered into or needed to be entered into to use the software.
It's CBDTPA that mandates securing devices capable of playing or recording copyrighted material.
Every PC is capable of playing, recording, creating, and altering copyrighted material. That's the purpose of the company -- to manipulate information. By reversing the capability of the computer, corporate america is stealing your computer from you. I do not make a distinction between DRM and armed robbery, besides the robber being honest. There is no defence, redeaming value, or excuse for any DRM whatsoever. Period.
The problems with the old factories were largely addressed through the unionization of blue collar works. BBC points out the problem, and the solution is obvious: unionize.
No, the whole purpose of a for-profit organization is greed, not the efficient use of scarse resources. Non-profits generally make far more efficient use of, and distribution of, resources. For-profits are only as efficient as they need to be, and efficiency, quality, or customer service rarely have any involvement in the success of a corporation.
This is a common misconception, actually. Well, today they exist to make money. But that wasn't always the case. In the 1700s, corporations existed because the government wanted them to, because they served a public good. Think about whether having everyone working for an organization that's single and only goal is greed is really a good thing.
This is all good and well, except for a few things.
By you working long hours, your employer now has the expectation that other employees will work long hours.
You are likely making someone very rich. Are you yourself becoming very rich?
What are you doing for your community? Do you know people out of work? Do you think this is good for a society? Where everyone works, and no one volunteers?
What if you decide to start a family in a few years?
Working 40+ hours is simply not acceptable, even if you like it. You're contributing to a bad culture. Having said that, I often work too much too. What's the remedy? I don't know.
When you scale Unix/Linux, you generally will get bigger servers. Because uptime is good, the operating system can handle lots of CPUs, and the system almost never needs a reboot, one big server makes sense. That's why they are "reorganizing" to have fewer servers.
With Windows, you have a shorter uptime strategy (code for lousy uptime), configuration reboots, and the OS doesn't have the overhead for handling larger computers. The logical thing to do is to buy lots and lots of servers, and share the load between them.
The "reorg" is mandated by the way the operating systems scale.
Banks are conservative, yes. But banks are also, well, greedy. Very greedy. They aren't betting on Linux, they're betting on IBM, and if IBM promises them big savings, and IBM-quality enterprise support, the greediness of the bank takes hold.
In the future, he said, the bank hoped staff would converge to a single skill-set.
Ok, I generally like the sound of companies jumping ship to Linux, but we've heard the "converge to a single skill-set" dozens of times in the past few decades, and seldom with favorable results.
If I may bitch. You don't want a single skillset. You've got a C++/Linux project? Good! Hire half C++/Linux developers, half a mixture TCL/Linux, Perl/BSD, Visual Basic/Windows. You don't want a single skillset. Why? Generally the VB/Windows head will think a certain way. If you actually achieve your fantasy of a single skillset, you've lost the diversity of thought that comes with a staff from multiple backgrounds. People with different skills think of things different ways and can contribute great ideas.
Now if he said, converge on a single goal -- that would be far more encourage and far less pointie haired.
Slashdot Mirror
Does the wifi proof paint come with free cancer treatment?
You should check to make sure your Access Point isn't near any other equipment. It may be a combination of local appliance/computer and apartment complex noise that is making your network suffer.
Most users put their access points near their computers or entertainment centers -- don't do this. Put your cable modem and access point in part of your house with few appliances, and you should have better results.
Actually, there are some of us who are both clued and disable WEP. Block port 25, log the traffic, and it's the neighborly thing to do. bouncings's apartment: free wifi!
I suspect that anti-virus vendors are moving into the anti-spyware business. But maybe that's not good. A while ago, I asked myself, who don't anti-virus companies research more preventative measures against worms and viruses, such as selling secure email clients. The conclusion I reached is that like the medical industry, the anti-virus industry profits from the symptoms, so preventative measures would reduce overall profits. The same could be said for spyware removal tools. If spyware removal is now big business, there is a vested interest in the continued threat of spyware, so preventatives measures such as legislation and improved browser security, could face political interference from anti-spyware/anti-spam vendors. Something to consider.
Announcement: Modification to the base XFree86(TM) license.
After a thorough re-examination of the XFree86(TM) license and reviewing
how it fits in with the Project's long-stated licensing philosophy ("You
can do what you like with the code except claim that you wrote it."),
The XFree86 Project, Inc. has made some changes to its base license.
This license review was prompted by a desire to ensure that XFree86 and
its contributors are receiving due credit for their work. The text of
the modified license can be found at
http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html.
The purpose of these changes is to strengthen the "except claim you
wrote it" clause of the Project's licensing philosophy regarding binary
distributions of XFree86. While the original license covered this
adequately for source code redistribution, it has always been lacking
where binary redistribution was concerned.
This modified license falls easily within the long-standing XFree86
licensing policy, and so there has been no change to the classes of
licenses acceptable for code contributed to XFree86. In fact, some
contributions to XFree86 were covered by a similar license already.
Contributors to XFree86 remain free to retain copyright on the code they
contribute, and can also choose the license for their code within the
long-standing XFree86 licensing policy.
The license change applies to the base XFree86 license, and to source
files that explicitly carry a copyright notice in the name of The XFree86
Project, Inc. Copyrights and licenses in the names of others will not
be affected by this change. Furthermore, only a subset of such files
with an explicit copyright notice in the Project's name will initially
carry the modified license, which is the core XFree86 components, and
the source files where there is no explicit author list. The license
in the remaining files with an XFree86 copyright will only be changed
with permission from the listed authors.
The license change will be fully effective as of the 4.4.0 release.
The initial draft of the changes will be included in 4.4.0 RC3
(4.3.99.903). A source diff showing the initial draft of the changes
is being made available for review with this announcement, and can be
found at . All XFree86
contributors are invited to review the changes, and notify us of errors
and omissions so that they can be corrected before the 4.4.0 release.
Such notifications, as well as comments about the licensing changes
should be directed to the Forum@XFree86.org list. XFree86 contributors
are also encouraged to review the license change, and let us know if
they wish to make similar changes to licenses in their name.
* XFree86 is a trademark of The XFree86 Project, Inc., and is pending
registration.
Now that's one random statement.
San Antonio's Transguide is probably the best of any of these systems. Much of the city's infrastructure is covered, the signs are accurate, provide travel times, and are posted everywhere.
Get rid of the people who are defensive about their work, and you'll solve the problem.
But you know what? On my non-optimized platform with my web browser's somewhat old Sun JVM, Java is a dog. And the fact that there are a few successful java programs that may or may not work well on my PC is not persuasive.
Denver has had that for years.
I highly recommend you read about either Extreme Programming or Agile Software. Both of these schools of thought have come to the realization that you never want a big design up front. Keep your design as absolutely simple, dumb, and difficult to screw up as possible. Yes, those all go together. It's the ONLY way to design stable, quality software. No object-database wrapping engines, no XML Soap Servers, massive new framework. If you can possibly get by with some PHP scripts accessing a MySQL database in a weeks worth of time to get 50% the functionality, do it!
Let me say this again: If there is any way to make it simpler, do it. Stop whining, just make it simple.
Refactor your code later, only when needed. By keeping your design simple, you'll save time and those defects you were worring about will be minimal. Testing should be done either through unit tests or simple procedures.
And here's the most important part: give them WEEKLY releases. Never "postpone" a release. This lets them know where you are at in the project, and there will be no surprised or misleading estimates or anything. Never give estimates further out than a week, and always break down tasts into smaller tasks that will take less than a week.
And stop your bitching about not having enough time for a "top bottom" design. Top bottom designs are categorical failures.
Aside from another link to a slashdot article, it doesn't seem that there was an article in this case. But unless there was a contract signed in INK or normal copyright wouldn't grant the rights needed, the license agreement is void and null.
Just because something is in a license agreement, doesn't make it a legally binding agreement. On the contrary, almost all license agreements are void and users are in the full rights to ignore them.
The reason we have license agreements is that before an amendment to the copyright law, users did need license agreements to use software. When you buy copyrighted material, you can use it without an agreement. That's why it's legal to read a book without signing a contract -- you aren't copying the software, hence no contract is involved. But with software, in order to use the software, it must be copied several times. From floppy disk or punch card, to hard drive, to memory, and often back again. There was legal ambiguity as to whether simply using software infringed on a copyright. As such, a license agreement was included to grant users rights outside of normal copyright law. That is, a license agreement extended the users rights.
However, to allow software to be used, copyright law was eventually changed several times to allow for archiving software, and copying software as needed for execution. As such, no license agreement is needed to use software. So unless you want to do something outside of your basic rights as an end user, you do not need a license agreement.
Since you do not need a license agreement to user the program, and you never signed a license agreement, you do not agree to a license agreement to use the software. In a nutshell, that's why almost all license agreements are sham and your argument that a violation of a license agreement is not valid because no agreement was entered into or needed to be entered into to use the software.
The problems with the old factories were largely addressed through the unionization of blue collar works. BBC points out the problem, and the solution is obvious: unionize.
No, the whole purpose of a for-profit organization is greed, not the efficient use of scarse resources. Non-profits generally make far more efficient use of, and distribution of, resources. For-profits are only as efficient as they need to be, and efficiency, quality, or customer service rarely have any involvement in the success of a corporation.
This is a common misconception, actually. Well, today they exist to make money. But that wasn't always the case. In the 1700s, corporations existed because the government wanted them to, because they served a public good. Think about whether having everyone working for an organization that's single and only goal is greed is really a good thing.
- By you working long hours, your employer now has the expectation that other employees will work long hours.
- You are likely making someone very rich. Are you yourself becoming very rich?
- What are you doing for your community? Do you know people out of work? Do you think this is good for a society? Where everyone works, and no one volunteers?
- What if you decide to start a family in a few years?
Working 40+ hours is simply not acceptable, even if you like it. You're contributing to a bad culture. Having said that, I often work too much too. What's the remedy? I don't know.IMMOBILE.
With Windows, you have a shorter uptime strategy (code for lousy uptime), configuration reboots, and the OS doesn't have the overhead for handling larger computers. The logical thing to do is to buy lots and lots of servers, and share the load between them.
The "reorg" is mandated by the way the operating systems scale.
Banks are conservative, yes. But banks are also, well, greedy. Very greedy. They aren't betting on Linux, they're betting on IBM, and if IBM promises them big savings, and IBM-quality enterprise support, the greediness of the bank takes hold.
If I may bitch. You don't want a single skillset. You've got a C++/Linux project? Good! Hire half C++/Linux developers, half a mixture TCL/Linux, Perl/BSD, Visual Basic/Windows. You don't want a single skillset. Why? Generally the VB/Windows head will think a certain way. If you actually achieve your fantasy of a single skillset, you've lost the diversity of thought that comes with a staff from multiple backgrounds. People with different skills think of things different ways and can contribute great ideas.
Now if he said, converge on a single goal -- that would be far more encourage and far less pointie haired.
Sorry to harsh the buzz.
One for the office. It's actually pretty cheap compared to big bonuses, it'll always be rememberd, and it's a great recruiting tool.