All Tivos series 1 stand alone units work the way LionATL described without subscriptions. It is normally referred to as "boat anchor mode", but can still do manual recordings.
Normal series 2 units don't record without subscriptions. They only have the live buffer, that's it.
Yes, it really is that common. Union jobs usually negotiate employment contracts, but union jobs are pretty rare except in particular industries. Contractors get contracts. Full-timers, no contract.
Most of America is on no-contract employment-at-will. I've worked four full-time professional programming jobs with no employment contract ; nobody I know has ever had a salaried position with an employment contract (I know a few consultants, and they have contracts). It's just how it's done.
You left out that the individual provided case file names and dates and times and author and recipients of exactly the information he was requesting, and the FBI claims that despite being told which case files to look in, they had no need to look in those case files for doing the search.
In short, the FBI quite clearly did a half-assed job, and is maintaining that even if you tell them exactly where to find a document, they have no obligation to find it for you. Which is utter BS.
Oracle 8.1.6 could not successfully reimport views from dumps because it wouldn't know the order in which to import everything. Would you say it also had a long way to go as far as enterprise features?
It would be tremendously dangerous to reward this. People behave in line with their rewards. Financially reward people for finding errors, and you will find that they add errors to be found.
It doesn't look scrapped to me - my store-bought copy of WoW updated itself via a custom BitTorrent client, the Blizzard Downloader, and reported peer connection stats during the download.
What makes you think it is an error? By your own argument, schedules requiring the overttime are correct scheduling since they keep the cost down by relying on free work.
Assuming you brought up Common Public License, which is another BSD-style that expressly allows redistributing modified works with different licenses on the modifications and thus letting you take open code closed source?
I see no reason why GNU would want to allow mixing these two things - they don't want code to be closed source. The terms of the GPL were carefully written both to keep the code from being used in closed source programs and even to discourage the development of closed source programs in the first place.
They just aren't philosophically compatible, it isn't a 'problem' that will be 'fixed'.
Thanks, but I think you and the parent both missed that their goals are tremendously different.
You can modify Apache projects and re-release your modifications as proprietary code with other incompatible licenses, provided you keep the copyright and licensing on the Apache part intact. This is fundamentally philosophically completely different from the GPL, which has as its main goal the elimination of proprietary code.
Never said anything about hidden. The one does not imply the other.
You seem to take a narrow view of politics, in that it has to involve a particular politician? To me, when you tell other people what they should or should not be able to do, that's politics. GNU feels all people should be able to use code, and they work towards that end.
I happen to think they do a good job, although I don't always share their philosophy - I find the inability to restrict secondary distribution can make it hard to eat, and I don't believe a great programmer should have to wait tables.
LGPL is indeed a whole different story. Near as I can tell, GNU sees it solely as a necessary compromise to break into an already saturated market. Gnu does a great job talking about their goals for it: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
It sounds like you just have different goals than the GNU project, so BSD or Apache are much better for you too.
As far as 'coexist', man, I hope people don't start mixing licenses left and right - it would get massively confusing and even honest folk would find it well near impossible to avoid breaking the rules.
I personally like how there are plenty of different choices available to people with different goals. Want software to be more free? GNU. Just want your name out there as much as possible? Apache. Want the world to have your code however they see fit? BSD. There doesn't have to be one right answer.
The GPL is pushing a political agenda: "preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software." (from front page of gnu.org)
That restriction is the #1 thing that does support that agenda - if people find GPLed code useful enough that they want to use it, they will need to let others do likewise when they distribute their code.
I find it's not always what I want to do with my code (my agenda is often more in line with BSD), but it strikes me as genius in this means to achieve its end.
ReplayTV is the one with auto commercial skip (old versions only, they took it out of new ones for a lawsuit settlement). TiVo can only manually fast-forward - fear of lawsuits (or a 30-second skip can be manually enabled through a backdoor - but still, no auto commercial skip like Replay used to have).
In short, expect to forget skipping commercials on *all* new commercial PVRs for legal rather than technical reasons, so it isn't a strike against this particular one.
You clearly don't understand. We are paying for our optimism.
I saw Highlander 2. Swore I would never do *that* again. Paid to see Highlander 3. Renewed vow. Saw Highlander 4. Renewed vow...
I paid to see Matrix Reloaded. And then, Matrix Revolutions. Same deal. And if there is ever a Matrix 4, I'll be right there in line, dreading the experience.
I will do the same for Monsters Inc 2 and Toy Story 3, go, knowing they will suck, in the hopes that maybe somehow I will be pleasantly surprised and get to have another wonderful experience with those endearing characters and their interesting universe. It won't happen, and I will be disappointed, but I'll do it anyway.
Pixar has repeatedly proven that they have no need to rely on sequels to prop them up. Indeed, that is quite likely why they were willing to negotiate away the rights to sequels in the first place.
Not actually fired - you can't fire employees for unionizing, it's illegal.
Instead, Wal-Mart stopped employing meat-cutters. At all, in any of their stores, in a bid to try to keep it legal.
Wal-Mart has since been court ordered that this particular stunt was not acceptable. I can't find anything indicating the final end result. http://www.aflcio.org/aboutunions/ns06192003.cfm
Best interviewer? By what standard? His 'interviews' barely qualify for the label - they are primarily just him talking. Every now and then he lets a guest say a word or two, then he goes back to talking. Fun to watch, but *not* a good interview.
True microkernels (good example: QNX) are great for this.
If limiting yourself to Linux, see http://www.circlemud.org/~jelson/software/fusd/ h ttp://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7466 D rivers need not run in kernel space.
Even if they do use kernel space, they can still minimize the code running in kernel space. Windows has an entire GUI running in kernel space (reference: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winnt as/plan/kernelwp.mspx ). It should not be surprising that this has problems.
Sure we can. They appear to have made a system where any error in a 'driver' can destroy the entire system. This may have made sense 15 years ago, but today it's a dumb design and should have been fixed with one of the major rearchitectures they have done.
Slashdot Mirror
PINs aren't stored in the stripe. Not plaintext, not encrypted, not at all.
I really like how they don't point out that nothing has changed.
Which makes me wonder if they are going to change things without telling me one day.
Would you believe you are both right?
All Tivos series 1 stand alone units work the way LionATL described without subscriptions. It is normally referred to as "boat anchor mode", but can still do manual recordings.
Normal series 2 units don't record without subscriptions. They only have the live buffer, that's it.
Yes, it really is that common. Union jobs usually negotiate employment contracts, but union jobs are pretty rare except in particular industries. Contractors get contracts. Full-timers, no contract.
Most of America is on no-contract employment-at-will. I've worked four full-time professional programming jobs with no employment contract ; nobody I know has ever had a salaried position with an employment contract (I know a few consultants, and they have contracts). It's just how it's done.
You left out that the individual provided case file names and dates and times and author and recipients of exactly the information he was requesting, and the FBI claims that despite being told which case files to look in, they had no need to look in those case files for doing the search.
In short, the FBI quite clearly did a half-assed job, and is maintaining that even if you tell them exactly where to find a document, they have no obligation to find it for you. Which is utter BS.
Oracle 8.1.6 could not successfully reimport views from dumps because it wouldn't know the order in which to import everything. Would you say it also had a long way to go as far as enterprise features?
Nope, it's called doing your job.
It would be tremendously dangerous to reward this. People behave in line with their rewards. Financially reward people for finding errors, and you will find that they add errors to be found.
Don't you consider it far more likely that they simply refuse to operate with any *known* security bugs??
It doesn't look scrapped to me - my store-bought copy of WoW updated itself via a custom BitTorrent client, the Blizzard Downloader, and reported peer connection stats during the download.
Oooooooooooooh ooooh I know I know, 3!
Do I win?
What makes you think it is an error?
By your own argument, schedules requiring the overttime are correct scheduling since they keep the cost down by relying on free work.
Assuming you brought up Common Public License, which is another BSD-style that expressly allows redistributing modified works with different licenses on the modifications and thus letting you take open code closed source?
I see no reason why GNU would want to allow mixing these two things - they don't want code to be closed source. The terms of the GPL were carefully written both to keep the code from being used in closed source programs and even to discourage the development of closed source programs in the first place.
They just aren't philosophically compatible, it isn't a 'problem' that will be 'fixed'.
Thanks, but I think you and the parent both missed that their goals are tremendously different.
You can modify Apache projects and re-release your modifications as proprietary code with other incompatible licenses, provided you keep the copyright and licensing on the Apache part intact. This is fundamentally philosophically completely different from the GPL, which has as its main goal the elimination of proprietary code.
Never said anything about hidden. The one does not imply the other.
You seem to take a narrow view of politics, in that it has to involve a particular politician? To me, when you tell other people what they should or should not be able to do, that's politics. GNU feels all people should be able to use code, and they work towards that end.
I happen to think they do a good job, although I don't always share their philosophy - I find the inability to restrict secondary distribution can make it hard to eat, and I don't believe a great programmer should have to wait tables.
LGPL is indeed a whole different story. Near as I can tell, GNU sees it solely as a necessary compromise to break into an already saturated market. Gnu does a great job talking about their goals for it: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
It sounds like you just have different goals than the GNU project, so BSD or Apache are much better for you too.
As far as 'coexist', man, I hope people don't start mixing licenses left and right - it would get massively confusing and even honest folk would find it well near impossible to avoid breaking the rules.
I personally like how there are plenty of different choices available to people with different goals. Want software to be more free? GNU. Just want your name out there as much as possible? Apache. Want the world to have your code however they see fit? BSD. There doesn't have to be one right answer.
Afraid that is the *point* of the GPL.
The GPL is pushing a political agenda: "preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software." (from front page of gnu.org)
That restriction is the #1 thing that does support that agenda - if people find GPLed code useful enough that they want to use it, they will need to let others do likewise when they distribute their code.
I find it's not always what I want to do with my code (my agenda is often more in line with BSD), but it strikes me as genius in this means to achieve its end.
Mickey Mouse is keeping us from reading newspapers from the great depression? How powerful should one rat be?
ReplayTV is the one with auto commercial skip (old versions only, they took it out of new ones for a lawsuit settlement). TiVo can only manually fast-forward - fear of lawsuits (or a 30-second skip can be manually enabled through a backdoor - but still, no auto commercial skip like Replay used to have).
In short, expect to forget skipping commercials on *all* new commercial PVRs for legal rather than technical reasons, so it isn't a strike against this particular one.
You clearly don't understand. We are paying for our optimism.
I saw Highlander 2. Swore I would never do *that* again. Paid to see Highlander 3. Renewed vow. Saw Highlander 4. Renewed vow...
I paid to see Matrix Reloaded. And then, Matrix Revolutions. Same deal. And if there is ever a Matrix 4, I'll be right there in line, dreading the experience.
I will do the same for Monsters Inc 2 and Toy Story 3, go, knowing they will suck, in the hopes that maybe somehow I will be pleasantly surprised and get to have another wonderful experience with those endearing characters and their interesting universe. It won't happen, and I will be disappointed, but I'll do it anyway.
Pixar has repeatedly proven that they have no need to rely on sequels to prop them up. Indeed, that is quite likely why they were willing to negotiate away the rights to sequels in the first place.
Not actually fired - you can't fire employees for unionizing, it's illegal.
Instead, Wal-Mart stopped employing meat-cutters. At all, in any of their stores, in a bid to try to keep it legal.
Wal-Mart has since been court ordered that this particular stunt was not acceptable. I can't find anything indicating the final end result. http://www.aflcio.org/aboutunions/ns06192003.cfm
Charge reasonable prices and people will complain less. Until then, let 'em complain.
Best interviewer? By what standard? His 'interviews' barely qualify for the label - they are primarily just him talking. Every now and then he lets a guest say a word or two, then he goes back to talking. Fun to watch, but *not* a good interview.
True microkernels (good example: QNX) are great for this.
h ttp://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7466
D rivers need not run in kernel space.
t as/plan/kernelwp.mspx ). It should not be surprising that this has problems.
If limiting yourself to Linux, see http://www.circlemud.org/~jelson/software/fusd/
Even if they do use kernel space, they can still minimize the code running in kernel space. Windows has an entire GUI running in kernel space (reference: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winn
Sure we can. They appear to have made a system where any error in a 'driver' can destroy the entire system. This may have made sense 15 years ago, but today it's a dumb design and should have been fixed with one of the major rearchitectures they have done.