The hazards include exceeding MPE (maximum permissable exposure), RF burns, and disrupting the HF bands of radio.
Um, you just made that up didn't you? I have never seen anyone, including W1RFI (Ed Hare), state that there was any type of RF hazard from BPL. It does pose a serious interference problem for anyone using HF, but not a health risk.
Just think of how much better the 1990's could have been if the entire IBM organization pre-empted Windows 95 by 3.5 solid years.
OS/2 was doomed to fail when directly competing against Windows. Not due to any technical reason, but because you can't beat Microsoft's Windows by attempting to market a better Windows, than Windows.
By embracing Linux, you can't be gamed by Microsoft.
This is sad, because there are still multitudes without regional access to DSL or cable. Satellite is expensive and still uses dial-up for upstream comm. And some of those who are still using dial-up have to deal with poor line quality and congestion. Power lines exist everywhere, and have the ability to bring high-speed access to a lot of people.
Well, you have to ask yourself, would it be OK to pollute the rivers in your town so that people can have cheap and affordable DSL? Imagine no one being able to use those water ways because they were too polluted.
The HF part of the RF spectrum is a valuable natural resource, just like rivers and streams. It is unique because signals bounce off the ionosphere to land hundreds or thousands of miles away, without any infrastructure other than the Earth's magnetic field and solar winds. It is used for long range Marine and Aircraft navigation, Military comms, Broadcasts and Amateur communications.
It would be a shame to completely ruin this natural resource to line the pockets of the power companies.
If you knew my politics, you would know that last statement is not someting that pops out of mouth without some real thought. (I like capitolism, a lot)
Zmodem allowed asynchronous communications which provided faster data transfer rates and better error detection. In particular, Zmodem supported larger block sizes and enables the transfer to resume where it left off following a communications failure.
The thing that made Zmodem much better than Ymodem,Xmodem-1k or Xmodem was that it would perform CRC checking and would only send a NAK if the CRC was bad. It would then resend the bad block. Much better than sending ACK after ACK for good blocks.
He then sliced $300 million out of that sucker, even as people were dying of hypothermia, or, to put it bluntly, freezing to death.
Sometimes he even cuts your program before he comes to praise it. In August 2002, Bush held a photo op with the Quecreek coal miners, the nine men whose rescue had thrilled the country. By then he had already cut the coal-safety budget at the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which engineered the rescue, by 6 percent, and had named a coal-industry executive to run the agency.
Can some kind person please do me (and others like me) a favor and explain this whole thing in a way that a 4th grader can understand?Ok, you asked for it.
That's just plainly not true. You cannot take something entirely free and make it freer by restricting its use.
The GPL in no way restricts the USE of the software, it only has restrictions on the distribution of the software. This is why users love the GPL and *SOME* developers hate the GPL, because they don't get a free lunch.
Many Linux bigots have criticized the involvment of American companies in the development of Linux because, according to the bigots, the companies will end up in controlling the development of Linux.
This is complete astroturfing. I HAVE seen closed source supporters call Linux and other OSS projects "foreign software", but I have never seen that logic flipped by the OSS guys.
Your a troll and your simply attempting to cause an emotional reaction in people based on their patriotism.
Seems to me that not only would such a design cause RF interference, but it would be susceptible to strong RF fields as well. I doubt it could pass part 15 compliance.
Well except when trying to show ham radio to someone last night
Huh? Maybe the upper bands. On many occasions I have worked the other side of the plant, past midnight localtime, on 40 meters. You just have to have an antenna that performs well on the lower bands.
It's the equivalent of having 100,000 people pound the same ass hole, over and over, at the same time. Such attacks can knock a computer offline simply by swamping it with more data than it can handle.
Copyright must come first, if IBM isn't the copyright holder than the fact they put GPL licence text on a file means nothing.
So you think that SCO really owns NUMA, JFS, RCU and AIX? That is the only way their argument makes any sense. I think you give too little credit to IBM's IP lawyers if you believe that. Not even SCO believes that.
I'm not a radio geek, or lawyer, but, doesn't every device that has an FCC label on it basically say that you have to accept any interference that occurs?
Only if it is some kind of Part 15 device. The other requirement of unlicensed Part 15 devices is that they NOT cause harmful interference. The FCC wants to change that rule.
Just wait until the military finds out they have no HF comms because the base in located in a town with BPL.
Yep, S9 noise over the WHOLE HF spectrum. It will destroy a natural resource, the ionoshere.
Ok, having watched the video and listen to the audio, the interference sounds like a bunch of clicks... does this corresponde to the data transfer occuring over the powerlines being a type of packet-burst communication?
The noise is a broadband hash of signals that cover tens of Mhz.
I guess we are going to find out if they really care about IP rights, that is, IBM's IP rights.Otherwise they are no better than what they have been accusing the Linux community being, IP pirates.
"Linux" would probably be ruled lost by a court, because Linus Torvalds, the holder of the mark, has not enforced any rights he may have had to the mark. I am a lawyer.
Those programms that let you click-wrap through the GPL, like EULA do, show the programmers have not understood that the GPL is not an EULA, that does NOT needed to be agreed, until you want to redistribute or change the software.
You are not bound by the GPL if you CHANGE the software, only if you distribute it.
Repeat and write 100 times: The GPL is NOT an EULA!!!!
Repeat and write 100 times: You are not bound by the GPL if you CHANGE the software, only if you distribute it.
and the increased control in the name of freedom (if you license your software under GPL, can you do anything you want with it? No!)
Ok, guess you are viewing it from a developer's perspective. The GPL is about giving freedom to the USER. You have the freedom as a user to inspect, repair and modify the program as you see fit. With many other licenses you may not even be able to look at the source code. (Think TCP/IP stack in Windows, it's licensed to Microsoft under BSD and then licensed again to the end user)
I'm no zealot, I think other licenses are just fine. But if you don't see that the GPL is designed to help USERS, not developers, you are missing the whole point of Free Software.
The GPL, by design, will make it unprofitable to sell software sight unseen. If the GPL became dominant, software would be limited to an add-on provided by OEMs, contractors, and philantrophic coders.
People don't buy "software". People buy solutions to problems. This is way more money is made by contract programming than by selling boxes of software.
Before you call that a troll--if YOU could be paid $12000 (welfare) to stay home and code, with no boss and little-to-no prejudice against how you get the money, would you?
What do you mean by "welfare". I don't see contract programming as "welfare", even if it is done for the government. Welfare is a hand out, not the exchange of programming for money.
As to the first part, it doesn't matter what the contract's primary function is. It places a restriction on distribution. It doesn't matter that the restriction may only relate to a separate product, it is still an additional restriction on the distribution of the software. The Gnu GPL doesn't simply say that you can distribute it without paying them more, it says that you can use and distribute it without any further restrictions.
If I install GPL software on 1 or 100 machines in my organization, it is not distribution. Your arguement is flawed because you equate distribution to the restrictions imposed by other EULAs that DO restrict how many times you can install a peice of software. It's only distribution if I give the software to a 2nd party . This is basic contract law and does not violate the GPL in any way, shape or form.
Slashdot Mirror
The hazards include exceeding MPE (maximum permissable exposure), RF burns, and disrupting the HF bands of radio.
Um, you just made that up didn't you? I have never seen anyone, including W1RFI (Ed Hare), state that there was any type of RF hazard from BPL. It does pose a serious interference problem for anyone using HF, but not a health risk.
Just think of how much better the 1990's could have been if the entire IBM organization pre-empted Windows 95 by 3.5 solid years.
OS/2 was doomed to fail when directly competing against Windows. Not due to any technical reason, but because you can't beat Microsoft's Windows by attempting to market a better Windows, than Windows. By embracing Linux, you can't be gamed by Microsoft.
This is sad, because there are still multitudes without regional access to DSL or cable. Satellite is expensive and still uses dial-up for upstream comm. And some of those who are still using dial-up have to deal with poor line quality and congestion. Power lines exist everywhere, and have the ability to bring high-speed access to a lot of people.
Well, you have to ask yourself, would it be OK to pollute the rivers in your town so that people can have cheap and affordable DSL? Imagine no one being able to use those water ways because they were too polluted.
The HF part of the RF spectrum is a valuable natural resource, just like rivers and streams. It is unique because signals bounce off the ionosphere to land hundreds or thousands of miles away, without any infrastructure other than the Earth's magnetic field and solar winds. It is used for long range Marine and Aircraft navigation, Military comms, Broadcasts and Amateur communications.
It would be a shame to completely ruin this natural resource to line the pockets of the power companies.
If you knew my politics, you would know that last statement is not someting that pops out of mouth without some real thought. (I like capitolism, a lot)
Zmodem allowed asynchronous communications which provided faster data transfer rates and better error detection. In particular, Zmodem supported larger block sizes and enables the transfer to resume where it left off following a communications failure.
The thing that made Zmodem much better than Ymodem,Xmodem-1k or Xmodem was that it would perform CRC checking and would only send a NAK if the CRC was bad. It would then resend the bad block. Much better than sending ACK after ACK for good blocks.
God do I miss the days of Microware's OS-9.
only problem is in the US these frequencies are not for broadcasting TV. 7Mhz is for Amateur radio frequencies.
I have not read the article, but I suspect that it is 7Mhz of spectrum centered around 45Mhz.
Just imagine how far you could transmit during E layer band openings. Hehehehe
He then sliced $300 million out of that sucker, even as people were dying of hypothermia, or, to put it bluntly, freezing to death.
Sometimes he even cuts your program before he comes to praise it. In August 2002, Bush held a photo op with the Quecreek coal miners, the nine men whose rescue had thrilled the country. By then he had already cut the coal-safety budget at the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which engineered the rescue, by 6 percent, and had named a coal-industry executive to run the agency.
And I thought congress held the purse.
Can some kind person please do me (and others like me) a favor and explain this whole thing in a way that a 4th grader can understand? Ok, you asked for it.
That's just plainly not true. You cannot take something entirely free and make it freer by restricting its use.
The GPL in no way restricts the USE of the software, it only has restrictions on the distribution of the software. This is why users love the GPL and *SOME* developers hate the GPL, because they don't get a free lunch.
The Crossbow Project. There's no defense like a good offense!
Laslo Buddy, I failed! But I passed! Do you want to see a demonstration of gravity?
Many Linux bigots have criticized the involvment of American companies in the development of Linux because, according to the bigots, the companies will end up in controlling the development of Linux.
This is complete astroturfing. I HAVE seen closed source supporters call Linux and other OSS projects "foreign software", but I have never seen that logic flipped by the OSS guys. Your a troll and your simply attempting to cause an emotional reaction in people based on their patriotism.
Seems to me that not only would such a design cause RF interference, but it would be susceptible to strong RF fields as well. I doubt it could pass part 15 compliance.
Well except when trying to show ham radio to someone last night Huh? Maybe the upper bands. On many occasions I have worked the other side of the plant, past midnight localtime, on 40 meters. You just have to have an antenna that performs well on the lower bands.
It's the equivalent of having 100,000 people pound the same ass hole, over and over, at the same time. Such attacks can knock a computer offline simply by swamping it with more data than it can handle.
Hahaha! Too bad that was not in the real article.
Copyright must come first, if IBM isn't the copyright holder than the fact they put GPL licence text on a file means nothing.
So you think that SCO really owns NUMA, JFS, RCU and AIX? That is the only way their argument makes any sense. I think you give too little credit to IBM's IP lawyers if you believe that. Not even SCO believes that.
I'm not a radio geek, or lawyer, but, doesn't every device that has an FCC label on it basically say that you have to accept any interference that occurs?
Only if it is some kind of Part 15 device. The other requirement of unlicensed Part 15 devices is that they NOT cause harmful interference. The FCC wants to change that rule. Just wait until the military finds out they have no HF comms because the base in located in a town with BPL. Yep, S9 noise over the WHOLE HF spectrum. It will destroy a natural resource, the ionoshere.
Ok, having watched the video and listen to the audio, the interference sounds like a bunch of clicks... does this corresponde to the data transfer occuring over the powerlines being a type of packet-burst communication?
The noise is a broadband hash of signals that cover tens of Mhz.
Here is a thread on qrz what has some answers by the guy that made the video, W1RFI.
I guess we are going to find out if they really care about IP rights, that is, IBM's IP rights.Otherwise they are no better than what they have been accusing the Linux community being, IP pirates.
"Linux" would probably be ruled lost by a court, because Linus Torvalds, the holder of the mark, has not enforced any rights he may have had to the mark. I am a lawyer.
Think again.
Those programms that let you click-wrap through the GPL, like EULA do, show the programmers have not understood that the GPL is not an EULA, that does NOT needed to be agreed, until you want to redistribute or change the software.
You are not bound by the GPL if you CHANGE the software, only if you distribute it.
Repeat and write 100 times: The GPL is NOT an EULA!!!!
Repeat and write 100 times: You are not bound by the GPL if you CHANGE the software, only if you distribute it.
and the increased control in the name of freedom (if you license your software under GPL, can you do anything you want with it? No!)
Ok, guess you are viewing it from a developer's perspective. The GPL is about giving freedom to the USER. You have the freedom as a user to inspect, repair and modify the program as you see fit. With many other licenses you may not even be able to look at the source code. (Think TCP/IP stack in Windows, it's licensed to Microsoft under BSD and then licensed again to the end user)
I'm no zealot, I think other licenses are just fine. But if you don't see that the GPL is designed to help USERS, not developers, you are missing the whole point of Free Software.
that thinks Boot List Order Bug when you see blob?
(Anyone who knows Microware's OS-9 knows about the BLOB)
The GPL, by design, will make it unprofitable to sell software sight unseen. If the GPL became dominant, software would be limited to an add-on provided by OEMs, contractors, and philantrophic coders.
People don't buy "software". People buy solutions to problems. This is way more money is made by contract programming than by selling boxes of software.
Before you call that a troll--if YOU could be paid $12000 (welfare) to stay home and code, with no boss and little-to-no prejudice against how you get the money, would you?
What do you mean by "welfare". I don't see contract programming as "welfare", even if it is done for the government. Welfare is a hand out, not the exchange of programming for money.
As to the first part, it doesn't matter what the contract's primary function is. It places a restriction on distribution. It doesn't matter that the restriction may only relate to a separate product, it is still an additional restriction on the distribution of the software. The Gnu GPL doesn't simply say that you can distribute it without paying them more, it says that you can use and distribute it without any further restrictions.
If I install GPL software on 1 or 100 machines in my organization, it is not distribution. Your arguement is flawed because you equate distribution to the restrictions imposed by other EULAs that DO restrict how many times you can install a peice of software. It's only distribution if I give the software to a 2nd party . This is basic contract law and does not violate the GPL in any way, shape or form.