Milestones: establish concrete goals when you start the project, along with a timeline. Of course, these may evolve over time. Happens for commercial apps, too. If concrete milestones aren't met at some point, it's just vapor. Traffic: both developer and user. Is there a relatively continuous level of input/interest in the project? If developers don't want to develop, and users don't want to use, it's probably going nowhere, even if it's the best thing since the BeOS.
Operative words are "his bucks". Means he gets to decide how to spend them. If a SciFi museum floats his boat, well OK. If he wants to get himself a sports team, Okie Dokie. If he wants to gift it to me... OTOH, buying politicians and forcing citiziens to build you a new stadium is entirely different. And for the record, the EMP is (from the outside at least, never gone in) the FUGGLIEST building I have ever seen.
Does anyone else think it looks really bad to rush in because Iraq is destroying its oil wells? Bush is trying to tell everyone this isn't about oil, so doesn't that undermine this?
Does anyone else think this is a case of "thou doest protest too much?" If we DIDN'T rush in, what are the odds that BUSH would NOT be blaimed for causing (!!!) an environmental catastrophy by sitting on his hands. Talk about being consistent with the BS...
Yes. In GB, you pay an annual tax in order to have a television. Sometimes, you pay an annual tax just because they think you might have a televeision.
.. any word on how it impacts a dual-boot box?
So far, so good. I've got TT installed in WIN98. I run a triple-boot WIN98/RH8.0/Mandrake9.0, using RedHat's Grub. Works fine, boots fine.
Intuit's still a bunch of SOBs for doing such a dangerous thing, though.
Uhm...I stand corrected. Just looked up "Broadcast" in Part 97. I was defining "one-way transmissions". Your definition of "Broadcast" was correct. Mine was not. Note to self: "Cut down on caffine may not be a good new year's resolution."
However, the article STILL doesn't contemplate Hams intending to send transmissions TO non-Hams.
You are correct that a Ham cannot intend to communicate with a non-ham. You are correct that a Ham cannot broadcast. (These, btw, are NOT the same thing according to the FCC)
However, nothing in the article contemplated Hams communicating with non-hams. Nor did it contemplate Hams broadcasting (one-way transmissions).
When you say it would be illegal for me, KD7RAE to send a transmission INTENDED for reception Joe Nolicense, you are correct. However, when I send a 802.11 (or any other format) transmission with the intent of communicating with other Hams (as intended by the article), it is totally irrelivant if Joe Nolicense listens in.
Actually, broadcasting is more accurately defined as a "one way communication, other than brief test transmissions" (I don't have my part 97 book handy, if my paraphrase is too far off, someone will correct me, I'm sure). Whether or not unlicensed entities can receive them is irrelevant.
what is relevant is whether the transmission is intended to be part of an N- (where N >=2) communication.
Btw, any yahoo can legally buy a ham radio in the US (unless your state laws say different, IANAL) and listen all day long.
-73-
Actually, you would be surprised what "their current gear" includes. Hams have been broadcasting and receiving SSTV (slow scan tv) for literally decades. Packet radio (which requires computers) for a very long time, have been doing homebrew GPS, Autopatch (radio to land-line) etc.
About the only "new" equipment needed would be a 802.11 compilant transciver, which is nothing more than a radio that can transmit and receive at a given frequency (and a bit-o software), when you get right down to it.
-73-
Slashdot Mirror
No holodeck.
No Q
they signed the anti-spam law at the AOL HQ?
Isn't that one of the seven signs, or something?
Or
yes
OTOH, he wasn't advocating NOT lynching a spammer.
I'm just saying...
I dunno. I rather expect that I'll use it. Unless they decide to charge $55 a song or something.
seal from Columbia's left wing
Buzz: "Why can't those left wingers from Columbia U. leave innocent seals out of thier nefarious plots?!"
Milestones: establish concrete goals when you start the project, along with a timeline. Of course, these may evolve over time. Happens for commercial apps, too. If concrete milestones aren't met at some point, it's just vapor.
Traffic: both developer and user. Is there a relatively continuous level of input/interest in the project? If developers don't want to develop, and users don't want to use, it's probably going nowhere, even if it's the best thing since the BeOS.
and skipped directly to Flash.
I thought it came from the icky bits o' pigs?
If they had written the paper correctly, there would be no need to right it.
Operative words are "his bucks".
Means he gets to decide how to spend them.
If a SciFi museum floats his boat, well OK.
If he wants to get himself a sports team, Okie Dokie.
If he wants to gift it to me...
OTOH, buying politicians and forcing citiziens to build you a new stadium is entirely different.
And for the record, the EMP is (from the outside at least, never gone in) the FUGGLIEST building I have ever seen.
Frank Bajak, Technology Editor for The Associated Press, wrote with a correction
/. ?
The AP reads
Now, THAT'S news.
How many times do I need to say it!?! I do not seek, and will NOT accept the nomination..."
You R'ed TFA?
Mod child up, please.
It would be better if they had an opt-in list, instead of an opt-out. But it's better than what they had before, so at least it's progress.
Personally, I eliminated all telemarketer calls in one day. Got rid of my land line (cell phone only). Not one single telemarketer in over 6 months.
You don't send the military somewhere because you plan on handing out teddy bears and lollypops.
:-P
You forget the USMC "toys for tots" program
Does anyone else think it looks really bad to rush in because Iraq is destroying its oil wells? Bush is trying to tell everyone this isn't about oil, so doesn't that undermine this?
Does anyone else think this is a case of "thou doest protest too much?"
If we DIDN'T rush in, what are the odds that BUSH would NOT be blaimed for causing (!!!) an environmental catastrophy by sitting on his hands.
Talk about being consistent with the BS...
Yes. In GB, you pay an annual tax in order to have a television. Sometimes, you pay an annual tax just because they think you might have a televeision.
o nid=YS4TKAHQSQLXGCRBAELCFEY?type=oddlyEnoughNews&s toryID=2350764
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessi
.. any word on how it impacts a dual-boot box? So far, so good. I've got TT installed in WIN98. I run a triple-boot WIN98/RH8.0/Mandrake9.0, using RedHat's Grub. Works fine, boots fine.
Intuit's still a bunch of SOBs for doing such a dangerous thing, though.
Now that the FCC has agreed to give you back your license, what Freq do you work?
Nope, just me. I don't do AM well...Esp w/o caffine.
Good Luck on the exam. Remember, when in doubt, the answer is "C".
73
KD7RAE
Uhm...I stand corrected. Just looked up "Broadcast" in Part 97. I was defining "one-way transmissions". Your definition of "Broadcast" was correct. Mine was not.
Note to self: "Cut down on caffine may not be a good new year's resolution."
However, the article STILL doesn't contemplate Hams intending to send transmissions TO non-Hams.
You are correct that a Ham cannot intend to communicate with a non-ham. You are correct that a Ham cannot broadcast. (These, btw, are NOT the same thing according to the FCC)
However, nothing in the article contemplated Hams communicating with non-hams. Nor did it contemplate Hams broadcasting (one-way transmissions).
When you say it would be illegal for me, KD7RAE to send a transmission INTENDED for reception Joe Nolicense, you are correct. However, when I send a 802.11 (or any other format) transmission with the intent of communicating with other Hams (as intended by the article), it is totally irrelivant if Joe Nolicense listens in.
Actually, broadcasting is more accurately defined as a "one way communication, other than brief test transmissions" (I don't have my part 97 book handy, if my paraphrase is too far off, someone will correct me, I'm sure). Whether or not unlicensed entities can receive them is irrelevant.
what is relevant is whether the transmission is intended to be part of an N- (where N >=2) communication.
Btw, any yahoo can legally buy a ham radio in the US (unless your state laws say different, IANAL) and listen all day long.
-73-
Actually, you would be surprised what "their current gear" includes. Hams have been broadcasting and receiving SSTV (slow scan tv) for literally decades. Packet radio (which requires computers) for a very long time, have been doing homebrew GPS, Autopatch (radio to land-line) etc.
About the only "new" equipment needed would be a 802.11 compilant transciver, which is nothing more than a radio that can transmit and receive at a given frequency (and a bit-o software), when you get right down to it.
-73-