Yes a Directory Server is a database. However, whereas a SQL server is a general purpose database engine, an LDAP Directory Server is typically optimized for read speed at the expense of write speed. Other highlights include a hiarchical tree structure to store entries and extensive standard schema for many object types.
Essentially, LDAP directories fill niche roles, one of which is as an address book server, another is authentication services. In their niche, DS deployments are unequalled (and no, slapping an LDAP protocol interface on a SQL engine doesn't cut it.) One guiding principal is if you have 70/80% reads to 30/20% writes - a directory server may be a better option for your application. There are other considerations, but that is beyond the scope of this blah blah blah...
Sun purchase them, and entered into deal where the products would be co-developed. Part of the deal was that both AOL and Sun had rights to all products. So when that co-development ended, both parties continued to develop their forks.
They also would have set off nuclear bombs to destroy all inhabitants of a city if they could get their hands on one. Yes, they were definitely exactly like Osama.
Yes, and we all know that no upstanding non-terrorist country would ever target civilians like that. The thought that any country in the world would consider blowing up a whole city (or two) with a weapon of mass destructuion is frankly ludicrous.
all things in Windows including the browser and the file navigator, they are all "windows"... If AOL wants to integrate into Windows (which 99% or more of ALL AOL customers use) seamlessly, they HAVE to use IE.
Um, and Netscape doesn't use "windows"? That really is the lamest 50,00 foot view of "windows" I've ever heard. You should probably spend a few more years coding "windows" to enhance your understanding before spouting off with fake authority on Slashdot, no wait, carry on...
Yes, because national currency never has anything to do with sovereignty does it? The ability to make ones own financial decisions for the currency is merely arm waving - it couldn't possibly give you more control over the countries finances. We all know that the wealth of a soveriegn state has nothing to do with its influence and power.
It's all so simple, silly Brits! Their year on year record of taking a net loss on financial outflow vs inflow to the EU clearly show their obstructionistic tendancies. Why, ceding the Bank of Englands power over their own currency to the German banks is what every Brit should yearn to do! There is certainly no history there to consider.
If you are listed as inventor, then they won't get those patents unless you sign any documents they need to respond to queries by the USPO. Usually they don't have much time to respond, and it is at this point you extract your "bonus" in return for your signature.
If you are not listed as the inventor, then your employer is making a fraudulent claim...
This is the equivalent of outlawing the printing press or paper itself, and I would an argument could be made for it outlawing the free press (or at least medium of it).
Laws that make technology illegal are always stupid laws that block progress. This one seeks to outlaw something that is already illegal through another, more sinister, avenue.
Yes, it does. In fact, it can take a year or more before your patent application even shows up in the application database. More money doesn't make it go any faster as far as I am aware.
Which itself has checks and balances. Parliament has the Houses of parliament - the commons that contains the elected folk that make the rules, and the lords, that traditionally had the birth right and ex-prime ministers but now is more democratic, who could send back a proposed law for reform. Then, finally, though it has never been excercised and probably never would since the power would be instantly removed - the queen could disolve parliament.
Actually that is completely false. The only time I ever agreed to anything, it was also clear that I retained the right to revoke the right to distribute and have my songs removed from the DB.
It seems to me that if I write and record a song then it is me who decides when a where it is played and how much I get for it...
Try that same dummass argument on Madonna, or The Rolling Stones and see how glad they are you picked them to screw over.
As an amusing anecdote, I once was writing a rudimentary file manager when I accidentally deleted all my source! After locking down my filesystem and learning how to undelete files, I realized that the code to copy files recursively that I had just written and tested I had used to copy the entire source tree.
To my eternal embarressment, the source code to my first ever floppy format program on the Atari ST met that fate. The only comfort was that it at least worked...
A while ago I asked Verizon Wireless to change my calling plan. They told me that since I was out of contract I would have to sign up for another 12 months in order to change my plan. Now, exactly what was the contract for in that instance? Not for any subsidized phone that's for sure.
I told them to cancel my account - the customer service rep was incredulous that I would cancel - he said "but you would have to sign up for a new contract anyway." Not with Verizon though... I don't do business with people who will rip me off if they are given a chance - and that is a rip off to be sure.
Anyway, patents are not meant to enforce exclusive use. As a private citizen, you can use patented technologies without royalties. Just not sell anything done with it.
Cough. Actually patents grant a temporary MONOPOLY on a technology. That means if you did not get that tech from a sanctioned source, you have no right to it. What you describe is more akin to copyright and fair use (or what is left of it).
In addition, patents and open source do not mix at all. Indeed patents are a very real threat to open source software because they can effectively bar their distribution/use and/or be used to extract royalites/damages from distributors/(usually) major users.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes a Directory Server is a database. However, whereas a SQL server is a general purpose database engine, an LDAP Directory Server is typically optimized for read speed at the expense of write speed. Other highlights include a hiarchical tree structure to store entries and extensive standard schema for many object types.
Essentially, LDAP directories fill niche roles, one of which is as an address book server, another is authentication services. In their niche, DS deployments are unequalled (and no, slapping an LDAP protocol interface on a SQL engine doesn't cut it.) One guiding principal is if you have 70/80% reads to 30/20% writes - a directory server may be a better option for your application. There are other considerations, but that is beyond the scope of this blah blah blah...
No. The common fork for both is the original Michigan DS.
Sun purchase them, and entered into deal where the products would be co-developed. Part of the deal was that both AOL and Sun had rights to all products. So when that co-development ended, both parties continued to develop their forks.
Other comments cover most of the features of Netscape DS acl's. One thing nobody mentioned is that ACL's may be applied down to value granularity.
Yes, because national currency never has anything to do with sovereignty does it? The ability to make ones own financial decisions for the currency is merely arm waving - it couldn't possibly give you more control over the countries finances. We all know that the wealth of a soveriegn state has nothing to do with its influence and power. It's all so simple, silly Brits! Their year on year record of taking a net loss on financial outflow vs inflow to the EU clearly show their obstructionistic tendancies. Why, ceding the Bank of Englands power over their own currency to the German banks is what every Brit should yearn to do! There is certainly no history there to consider.
We didn't borrow anything, we took them. And if they want their words back they are going to have to fight for them.
Well, I for one welcome our new fly ingesting robot Overlords.
If you are listed as inventor, then they won't get those patents unless you sign any documents they need to respond to queries by the USPO. Usually they don't have much time to respond, and it is at this point you extract your "bonus" in return for your signature.
If you are not listed as the inventor, then your employer is making a fraudulent claim...
This is the equivalent of outlawing the printing press or paper itself, and I would an argument could be made for it outlawing the free press (or at least medium of it). Laws that make technology illegal are always stupid laws that block progress. This one seeks to outlaw something that is already illegal through another, more sinister, avenue.
Well, I for one welcome our new genetic virii overlords.
Just a small point, how can there be nobody there yet Jerusalem exists and has population large enough to warrent a grand mufti?
It cannot, at least, unless you licence SCO's patented peer to peer networked space between things technology.
Yes, it does. In fact, it can take a year or more before your patent application even shows up in the application database. More money doesn't make it go any faster as far as I am aware.
Which itself has checks and balances. Parliament has the Houses of parliament - the commons that contains the elected folk that make the rules, and the lords, that traditionally had the birth right and ex-prime ministers but now is more democratic, who could send back a proposed law for reform. Then, finally, though it has never been excercised and probably never would since the power would be instantly removed - the queen could disolve parliament.
Actually that is completely false. The only time I ever agreed to anything, it was also clear that I retained the right to revoke the right to distribute and have my songs removed from the DB.
It seems to me that if I write and record a song then it is me who decides when a where it is played and how much I get for it...
Try that same dummass argument on Madonna, or The Rolling Stones and see how glad they are you picked them to screw over.
This same reasoning could be applied to books and magazines. People buy books, they buy magazines.
While I do not relish an internet full of pay only sites, I cannot in all honesty suggest that others should publish content only for free.
To my eternal embarressment, the source code to my first ever floppy format program on the Atari ST met that fate. The only comfort was that it at least worked...
A while ago I asked Verizon Wireless to change my calling plan. They told me that since I was out of contract I would have to sign up for another 12 months in order to change my plan. Now, exactly what was the contract for in that instance? Not for any subsidized phone that's for sure.
I told them to cancel my account - the customer service rep was incredulous that I would cancel - he said "but you would have to sign up for a new contract anyway." Not with Verizon though... I don't do business with people who will rip me off if they are given a chance - and that is a rip off to be sure.
Cough. Actually patents grant a temporary MONOPOLY on a technology. That means if you did not get that tech from a sanctioned source, you have no right to it. What you describe is more akin to copyright and fair use (or what is left of it).
In addition, patents and open source do not mix at all. Indeed patents are a very real threat to open source software because they can effectively bar their distribution/use and/or be used to extract royalites/damages from distributors/(usually) major users.
To find out, simply supply your IP address here ________