But, consider this...
If we really want to improve our education system, we have to improve our society's views on teachers
(ie, get rid of "You know what they say, those who can do, those who can't teach").
Quite frankly, I disagree with your assertion that the society in the US is disrespectful to teachers. I have never met anyone who thinks of or treats teaching and/or teachers in a disrespectful manner. In my view, educators are revered highly in the US, unfortunately there are issues with funding the educational system and with the curriculum in many cases. (FYI - the saying you mentioned is derived from a sports saying - Those that can... play, those that can't... coach. That saying is only meant as an insult to the athletic ability of "coaches". The only time I have heard that comment made in regards to teachers was in CS classes and from Business majors, and that was only in college where the saying actually has some legitimacy for business classes. (How many people do you know would rather teach a business class than run a successful business?)
In regards to elementary through high school teachers, I have never met anyone that disrespects their efforts. That may be because they are paid next to nothing and you really have to WANT to be a teacher. Nobody chooses to be a teacher "just because."
Members of the board should be drawn from lifetime teachers/educators, and isolated from the direct public.
I would rather see a mixture of teachers/educators and parents/others on the local school boards. You know, like the PTA is suppose to do. Also, the school board should never, NEVER, be isolated from the direct public. I will never let anyone have an impact on my child's education without having the ability to have an impact on those that make the decisions. I agree that the "lifetime politician" is a poor representative for a school board. But, isolating the board from the public is assinine.
In my view, the real problem lies at the state level. That is where the decisions on curriculum are made. That is where funding decisions are made. That is where the "Lifetime Politicians" are screwing things up.
I thought you were talking about MS Outlook and sharing calendars, etc. My bad.
I've had a hell of a time explaining the need for a server to small-business owners when they've upgraded to Office 2003. Outlook used to be decent for collaboration on its own.
As for a calendar server system, have you tried TUTOS or eGroupware? Without knowing the details that you are looking for in a calendar server, these two could fit the bill.
The reason I say that is Outlook 2003 will not allow you to share information without an Exchange server or someother connector and server software. I have looked for available options, if you want to share your calendar, contacts, etc in 2003 you need a server of some kind.
I believe the Court would find in favor of Grokster and StreamCast - that creating / developing / selling / distributing a product that may be used to commit a crime is legal AS LONG AS the person / company is not actively conding the crime.
Similar to the Betamax decision, but bring it into the digital age and put it to rest.
Does this regulation now allow for commercial implementation of BPL by US power companies, or is this not the end of the story as far as regulation in the US goes?
Commercial implementation was allowed prior to this regulation. In fact there have been a few power companies that have anounced significant plans for BPL before the FCC decided anything, and a few small scale deployements (BPL is available along 2 streets in my home town).
The main reason that power companies have not deployed BPL on a large scale, prior to this, was the lack of defined parameters and steps to take when dealing with interference with licensed devices (ie Ham Radio). Another part is these companies are still gauging the potential return that they should expect by deploying the technology.
In any case, this technology will be deployed in the US. Personally, I don't think it will amount to much as it will only be another high-speed internet competitor. While this could be the fastest way to deploy high-speed internet to the entire US, it will only spur other companies to deploy their technology faster (For example: CLECs that are deploying Fiber-to-the-Home and CATV companies that are still upgrading their systems for cable modems, local telephone companies that are deploying DSL).
Since I don't have any actual experience in selling advertising space on any of the sites I manage(d) I don't know what potential is out there. But, I do know that there was a study done a couple years ago on the effectiveness of Internet Advertising as compared to TV advertising. This study found that any viewing of an add on a website had the same impression value as a 30 second TV commercial(link). It seems to me that because of this, you could charge a flat fee for ad space based on the "lasting impression" that the ad makes on any viewer of the website. The hard part for you would probably be that it may require individual contracts with each advertiser instead of a contract with an ad company.
In a similar vein, you could charge a minimal amount on the number of "unique" views of the ad itself, something like a half cent per or whatever. This could be justified with the same argument that Internet ads have the same value as TV ads, billboards, etc., where you would get paid for people viewing it, not necessarily for people clicking through.
Since you brought it up. At the time that the Constitution and Bill of Rigths were written, any male that so desired could be part of the militia. During times that a militia was required, all of the male citizens were asked if they would like to join the militia. They brought there own weapons for use in combat. This militia did not get together to train and they were not part of militia during times of peace. The militia was quite simply a group of volunteers brought together in a time of crisis. Because of this the second amendment, as worded, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." clearly shows that being part of a militia is not a prerequisite to owning a firearm, but that individuals owning firearms is necessary for the security of the US and therefore a prerequisite for having a militia.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
And a particuallry eerie quote that seems applicable to this discussion, emphasis mine.
"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."(James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)
I disagree. Software is definately not like a book. A book requires someone read it to be useful. Software is part of a machine, it can do useful things without (direct) interaction from people.
Software requires the interaction with a machine. Lots of patents require the interaction with people in order to work. An internal combustion engine needs someone/thing to provide it with fuel or else it wouldn't work. Just because a book must be read to be useful is not valid justification for why it is not patentable and software is.
Patents apply to the technique or method used to accomplish something, perhaps a way to make elevators safer
I'll take your example and expand it. Let's say I have an idea on making elevators safer. My idea is to put a scale in the floor of the elevator with an analog read out so that you could actually know when the weight limit is near. This idea would not be patentable because it is merely a combination of existing technology in an obvious manner. But, if I took a bunch of electric scales, tied them together, then wrote some code that calculated the amount of weight, and then had the computer audibly announce the weight, I could theoretically get a patent on the code. It is the same idea, I only made it more complicated and then added "software" to the mix.
My whole point is that the majority of the software patents are being awarded for obvious things. Things, that in the absence of "software" would not be patentable because they are merely a combination of existing technology in obvious manners.
Another part of my disagreement with software patents is that there is no standard for reverse engineering and writing a similar, yet different, application. Maybe I would change my tune if someone could implement "similar yet different" products within the patent system. Currently I do not believe that is not the case. Some good cases in point are the AMD vs Intel on processor patents (AMD reverse engineered Intel processors) and Amazon vs Barnes and Noble on software patents (The One-Click Patent).
But this kind of nonsensical barrier to business development is what makes companies move offshore.
So, when exactly has any company been prevented from filing for patents. I know the grandparent's post is making an ingornant comment, but how does an idiotic comment on/. make companies move offshore?
Personally, I think any and all software patents should be eliminated. Software is the only "thing" that can be both patentable and copyrightable. I agree with the copyright part, but patenting software just doesn't make sense. To me, it's like patenting a book. Software is nothing but an instruction manual, written in a computer language, that is used by a (multiple) computer(s).
OK, I'll bite. Here is how you know the parent of your post is a troll.
First: SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES
Who exactly are these independent institutes?
Second: LinuxOS
What exactly is LinuxOS, I know that the Linux kernal is the basis of many distros, I've never heard of one named LinuxOS though.
Third: Linux 7.0 webserver
I've never heard of this application before. Linux itself is at 2.6, but the main webserver is Apache. So what exactly is this idiot talking about?
Fourth:
* $40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
* $1.79 per peak request per second.
Numbers thrown out for shock value that have no explanation on how they arrived at those numbers and the numbers themselves don't mean dick. "per megabit of throughput per second" - Really, How was that tested? Was this throughput for a network connection, or was it for disc writes? Was the hardware identical? What exactly does "$1.79 per peak request per second" mean? It doesn't tell me anything.
And finally, the telltale sign that the post was a troll: opensores in the place of opensource.
And, after all that, I can't believe that I took the bait to explain how the idiot is a troll.
I should have clarified a little more. I believe jail time should only be warranted if the person made a profit, or if it wasn't a first offense. Any fine that was along the order of the expected value of the offense would be acceptable to me as a punishment. Handling offenses in this manner would enable judges / juries the opportunity to hand out punishment that fits the crime. For example, in my view of how the punishement should work, whomever released Microsofts source code to the public would be subject to the market value of that source code and as such this could be argued as the expected amount of earnings from sales that have been comprimised by the release or the damage that the release caused. In the case of Sitecom it could be argued that any profit they made would not have been possible without the code and thus could be fined for the amount of profit they made while in violation of the copyright. In the case of an individual at a movie theater there are more complexities, but you could make a case of either the current value of the movie (since it is at the theaters and not available on DVD/VHS this would be a significant amount) or some percentage of the current value. Any of these would be, in my opinion, a just punishment and a significant deterent to the crime.
I agree that the legality of an action is enough in and of itself for prosicution. However, I believe that the current laws are harsher on individuals than they are on corporations. If a corporation like Sitecom is illegaly using someone elses copyrighted material then they should be subject to the same prosicution as an individual and thus the leaders of that company should be subject to jail time, just like an individual who records a movie at the theater. I don't believe that jail time is an appropriate punishment, but I would be more inclined to accept it as appropriate if the laws were equal to both the corporations that infringe and the individuals that infringe.
Also, I believe that some of the laws are, in fact, in blatent disregard of the fair use doctrine that has been upheld by the Supreme Court (although the recording at a movie does not fall under fair use).
The difference between the two and why, in my opinion, there is this dicotemy is that the MPAA article is about sending someone to jail, where the GPL article is about forcing a company to comply with the copyright.
Personally, the person caught recording the movie should be, at a minimum, subject to a fine, maybe jail if it wasn't a first offense. The real problem I have is that big business has made it so a single person (that is not making a profit, and that is a big part of my opinion) can be prosecuted and sent to jail. While a corporation (that is making a profit) is only subjected to potential fines from a civil trial. If one person can go to jail for copyright violations (I don't think that is a just punishment) then the leader(s) of a company violating copyright sould also be sent to jail.
I am currently running a project for a small (less than 800 subscriber) telephone company that is looking at replacing their switch. Because of this I have been doing a lot of research on available solutions. Now, not knowing what Cisco gave you as a quote for the system (Cisco may be significantlly cheaper than a softswitch), I would suggest looking at some of the Softswitch vendors that work in the ILEC industry, MetaSwitch, Taqua, CopperCom, Santera, Etc. A few of the vendors that offer services in this market came from the corporate PBX world and the majority, if not all (currently in the reasearch process), offer VoIP in their product. From the layout of your company you may find this to be a better fit.
"I am looking to have at least the following capabilities:
-Auto attendant
-Handle a PRI (hopefully allow forwarding of old PBX DIDs)
-Handle long distance T1 (we would initially segment off some channels from our current PBX)
-Handle WAN Traffic so we could utilize our unused channels for long distance from other locations
-Forwarding of voicemails to email
Nice optional features:
-Web based GUI for voicemail administration
-GUI call manager
Of the list of options that you are looking for, the only two that I'm not sure of availability with a Softswitch solution is the auto attendant and the voice mail forwarding (I think the voice mail forwarding is available, not positive). Also, a softswitch could provide more flexibility than a limited PBX system. I'm not sure if this is a better option, or even if a softswitch would fit into your system, but I thought I'd throw it out there as a potential option.
When I started my initial research into switch vendors I found this site Sipcenter.com was a useful resource for identifying potential vendors, although a few of the links are dead from the market fall. They have a section for IP PBX vendors, it may help you find a solution.
My recommendation, if you haven't already done this, is to put together a list of 10 - 12 potential vendors and send them a RFI/RFP. You may find a RFI/RFP process to be a valuable way to not only find a good solution, but provide you with the information to sway your boss(es).
Mass has nothing to do with the speed that an object falls. Gravity works equally on all particles within an object and all of the particles accelerate at the same speed. For terminal velocity, which occurs outside of a vacuum, the maximum velocity reached by an object is also not determined by the objects mass. Terminal velocity is determined by other factors, including the surface area and aerodynamics of the object, not the mass of the object.
A close friend of mine from college works for a large government contractor in the State College area doing programming. His wife also works for the same and does UNIX sys admin. The main reason they chose that out of collge was the rural area.
Also, Findlay, OH has a Microsoft Office (Formerly Great Plains Solomon). They might be hiring. Findlay is surrounded by small villages and isn't that big itself either. Also, has larger offices for Cooper Tire and Marathon.
First, there is no substitute for exposure to a great math teacher. I had the fortune to have had a couple great math teachers through elementary and high school that led me to major in math in college.
Second, knowing a few tricks isn't enough. Understanding the tricks and why they work is the key to improving your math skills. Beyond access to a teacher to help you with this, you may want to try some resources available on the web like MIT's OpenCourseWare. They have a lot of information available on their courses, including lecture notes and text books. However, quite a few of their courses online deal with mathematical theory and may not fit with what you are looking for, try some of their "applied" courses.
Third, as one previous poster mentioned, understanding algebra will help with breaking larger calculations into smaller, and easier, parts to calculate quickly in your head. A good source for learning materials would be a local college book store. Focus on algebra textbooks that cover the basics and how to teach them (If a local college offers Education majors, they should have at least one course that will fit your needs, find out which course and the accompanying books they recommend).
Finally, go to your local high school and find out what text they use in their first year algebra classes. If you mainly what to be able to calculate angles or lengths of object sides quickly, texts for high school geometry and trigonometry classes will offer more information. Understanding these texts will help you to improve.
I too haven't seen a response, but I believe the reason is that SCO did not identify any parts of System V code that were copied. They only identified sections from AIX and/or Dynix as being copied into Linux.
Basically, SCO changed from saying that the code from System V is in Linux to saying whatever any company developed and distributed with a Unix OS is a derivative work of System V and therefore owned by SCO. With this logic, any code that IBM developed for services on their Unix OS'es is now owned by SCO. This is such an idiotic argument that it's hard for me to think of a good way to rebuke it, other than "Are You F-ing Nuts?"
Well, I'm not positive on this for the differences between the satellites for DirecTV and DirecWay, but the angle and degree of elevation for any satellite dish is dictated by the satellite you are receiving from and your location. Potentially the satellites for both services are close enough where the difference won't matter, but I just don't know with out doing the research required on the satellites and the reception capabilities of the DirecWay dish.
As far as running the cable into the house, that depends on if the first install was done correctly and if the current feeds run to the same room that you want your internet access in. But, running RG-6 coax, which I believe is the cable of choice for this installation, is not hard unless your house's layout makes it difficult. The only thing you truely should consider is proper grounding, preferebly bonding to the existing electric ground around your power meter. But grounding to the copper pipes of your water system is considered acceptable practice in most areas.
Slashdot Mirror
But, consider this...
If we really want to improve our education system, we have to improve our society's views on teachers
(ie, get rid of "You know what they say, those who can do, those who can't teach").
Quite frankly, I disagree with your assertion that the society in the US is disrespectful to teachers. I have never met anyone who thinks of or treats teaching and/or teachers in a disrespectful manner. In my view, educators are revered highly in the US, unfortunately there are issues with funding the educational system and with the curriculum in many cases.
(FYI - the saying you mentioned is derived from a sports saying - Those that can... play, those that can't... coach. That saying is only meant as an insult to the athletic ability of "coaches". The only time I have heard that comment made in regards to teachers was in CS classes and from Business majors, and that was only in college where the saying actually has some legitimacy for business classes. (How many people do you know would rather teach a business class than run a successful business?)
In regards to elementary through high school teachers, I have never met anyone that disrespects their efforts. That may be because they are paid next to nothing and you really have to WANT to be a teacher. Nobody chooses to be a teacher "just because."
Members of the board should be drawn from lifetime teachers/educators, and isolated from the direct public.
I would rather see a mixture of teachers/educators and parents/others on the local school boards. You know, like the PTA is suppose to do. Also, the school board should never, NEVER, be isolated from the direct public. I will never let anyone have an impact on my child's education without having the ability to have an impact on those that make the decisions. I agree that the "lifetime politician" is a poor representative for a school board. But, isolating the board from the public is assinine.
In my view, the real problem lies at the state level. That is where the decisions on curriculum are made. That is where funding decisions are made. That is where the "Lifetime Politicians" are screwing things up.
What makes you think pizza doesn't get delivered in rural America?
I live in a town of ~400 people - no less than 5 different pizza places deliver to me.
I thought you were talking about MS Outlook and sharing calendars, etc. My bad.
I've had a hell of a time explaining the need for a server to small-business owners when they've upgraded to Office 2003. Outlook used to be decent for collaboration on its own.
As for a calendar server system, have you tried TUTOS or eGroupware? Without knowing the details that you are looking for in a calendar server, these two could fit the bill.
The reason I say that is Outlook 2003 will not allow you to share information without an Exchange server or someother connector and server software. I have looked for available options, if you want to share your calendar, contacts, etc in 2003 you need a server of some kind.
I believe the Court would find in favor of Grokster and StreamCast - that creating / developing / selling / distributing a product that may be used to commit a crime is legal AS LONG AS the person / company is not actively conding the crime.
Similar to the Betamax decision, but bring it into the digital age and put it to rest.
Does this regulation now allow for commercial implementation of BPL by US power companies, or is this not the end of the story as far as regulation in the US goes?
Commercial implementation was allowed prior to this regulation. In fact there have been a few power companies that have anounced significant plans for BPL before the FCC decided anything, and a few small scale deployements (BPL is available along 2 streets in my home town).
The main reason that power companies have not deployed BPL on a large scale, prior to this, was the lack of defined parameters and steps to take when dealing with interference with licensed devices (ie Ham Radio). Another part is these companies are still gauging the potential return that they should expect by deploying the technology.
In any case, this technology will be deployed in the US. Personally, I don't think it will amount to much as it will only be another high-speed internet competitor. While this could be the fastest way to deploy high-speed internet to the entire US, it will only spur other companies to deploy their technology faster (For example: CLECs that are deploying Fiber-to-the-Home and CATV companies that are still upgrading their systems for cable modems, local telephone companies that are deploying DSL).
Since I don't have any actual experience in selling advertising space on any of the sites I manage(d) I don't know what potential is out there. But, I do know that there was a study done a couple years ago on the effectiveness of Internet Advertising as compared to TV advertising. This study found that any viewing of an add on a website had the same impression value as a 30 second TV commercial(link). It seems to me that because of this, you could charge a flat fee for ad space based on the "lasting impression" that the ad makes on any viewer of the website. The hard part for you would probably be that it may require individual contracts with each advertiser instead of a contract with an ad company.
In a similar vein, you could charge a minimal amount on the number of "unique" views of the ad itself, something like a half cent per or whatever. This could be justified with the same argument that Internet ads have the same value as TV ads, billboards, etc., where you would get paid for people viewing it, not necessarily for people clicking through.
I too have gotten fed up with these e-mails in the past. Here is a link that I send in reply to those e-mails Soapbox - Humorous way to make your point.
The funny thing, I haven't received nearly as many of those e-mails since I started sending this in response.
You want a gun? Join a well-regulated militia.
Since you brought it up. At the time that the Constitution and Bill of Rigths were written, any male that so desired could be part of the militia. During times that a militia was required, all of the male citizens were asked if they would like to join the militia. They brought there own weapons for use in combat. This militia did not get together to train and they were not part of militia during times of peace. The militia was quite simply a group of volunteers brought together in a time of crisis. Because of this the second amendment, as worded, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." clearly shows that being part of a militia is not a prerequisite to owning a firearm, but that individuals owning firearms is necessary for the security of the US and therefore a prerequisite for having a militia.
Here is a little background - source link 1982 Report of the Subcommittee of the Consitution
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
And a particuallry eerie quote that seems applicable to this discussion, emphasis mine.
"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)
I disagree. Software is definately not like a book. A book requires someone read it to be useful. Software is part of a machine, it can do useful things without (direct) interaction from people.
Software requires the interaction with a machine. Lots of patents require the interaction with people in order to work. An internal combustion engine needs someone/thing to provide it with fuel or else it wouldn't work. Just because a book must be read to be useful is not valid justification for why it is not patentable and software is.
Patents apply to the technique or method used to accomplish something, perhaps a way to make elevators safer
I'll take your example and expand it. Let's say I have an idea on making elevators safer. My idea is to put a scale in the floor of the elevator with an analog read out so that you could actually know when the weight limit is near. This idea would not be patentable because it is merely a combination of existing technology in an obvious manner. But, if I took a bunch of electric scales, tied them together, then wrote some code that calculated the amount of weight, and then had the computer audibly announce the weight, I could theoretically get a patent on the code. It is the same idea, I only made it more complicated and then added "software" to the mix.
My whole point is that the majority of the software patents are being awarded for obvious things. Things, that in the absence of "software" would not be patentable because they are merely a combination of existing technology in obvious manners.
Another part of my disagreement with software patents is that there is no standard for reverse engineering and writing a similar, yet different, application. Maybe I would change my tune if someone could implement "similar yet different" products within the patent system. Currently I do not believe that is not the case. Some good cases in point are the AMD vs Intel on processor patents (AMD reverse engineered Intel processors) and Amazon vs Barnes and Noble on software patents (The One-Click Patent).
But this kind of nonsensical barrier to business development is what makes companies move offshore.
/. make companies move offshore?
So, when exactly has any company been prevented from filing for patents. I know the grandparent's post is making an ingornant comment, but how does an idiotic comment on
Personally, I think any and all software patents should be eliminated. Software is the only "thing" that can be both patentable and copyrightable. I agree with the copyright part, but patenting software just doesn't make sense. To me, it's like patenting a book. Software is nothing but an instruction manual, written in a computer language, that is used by a (multiple) computer(s).
OK, I'll bite. Here is how you know the parent of your post is a troll.
First: SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES
Who exactly are these independent institutes?
Second: LinuxOS
What exactly is LinuxOS, I know that the Linux kernal is the basis of many distros, I've never heard of one named LinuxOS though.
Third: Linux 7.0 webserver
I've never heard of this application before. Linux itself is at 2.6, but the main webserver is Apache. So what exactly is this idiot talking about?
Fourth: * $40.25 per megabit of throughput per second. * $1.79 per peak request per second.
Numbers thrown out for shock value that have no explanation on how they arrived at those numbers and the numbers themselves don't mean dick. "per megabit of throughput per second" - Really, How was that tested? Was this throughput for a network connection, or was it for disc writes? Was the hardware identical? What exactly does "$1.79 per peak request per second" mean? It doesn't tell me anything.
And finally, the telltale sign that the post was a troll: opensores in the place of opensource.
And, after all that, I can't believe that I took the bait to explain how the idiot is a troll.
A co-worker pointed this website out.
Otterbox.com - Armor PDA Cases
These cases look like a good solution to your needs.
I should have clarified a little more. I believe jail time should only be warranted if the person made a profit, or if it wasn't a first offense. Any fine that was along the order of the expected value of the offense would be acceptable to me as a punishment. Handling offenses in this manner would enable judges / juries the opportunity to hand out punishment that fits the crime. For example, in my view of how the punishement should work, whomever released Microsofts source code to the public would be subject to the market value of that source code and as such this could be argued as the expected amount of earnings from sales that have been comprimised by the release or the damage that the release caused. In the case of Sitecom it could be argued that any profit they made would not have been possible without the code and thus could be fined for the amount of profit they made while in violation of the copyright. In the case of an individual at a movie theater there are more complexities, but you could make a case of either the current value of the movie (since it is at the theaters and not available on DVD/VHS this would be a significant amount) or some percentage of the current value. Any of these would be, in my opinion, a just punishment and a significant deterent to the crime.
I agree that the legality of an action is enough in and of itself for prosicution. However, I believe that the current laws are harsher on individuals than they are on corporations. If a corporation like Sitecom is illegaly using someone elses copyrighted material then they should be subject to the same prosicution as an individual and thus the leaders of that company should be subject to jail time, just like an individual who records a movie at the theater. I don't believe that jail time is an appropriate punishment, but I would be more inclined to accept it as appropriate if the laws were equal to both the corporations that infringe and the individuals that infringe.
Also, I believe that some of the laws are, in fact, in blatent disregard of the fair use doctrine that has been upheld by the Supreme Court (although the recording at a movie does not fall under fair use).
The difference between the two and why, in my opinion, there is this dicotemy is that the MPAA article is about sending someone to jail, where the GPL article is about forcing a company to comply with the copyright.
Personally, the person caught recording the movie should be, at a minimum, subject to a fine, maybe jail if it wasn't a first offense. The real problem I have is that big business has made it so a single person (that is not making a profit, and that is a big part of my opinion) can be prosecuted and sent to jail. While a corporation (that is making a profit) is only subjected to potential fines from a civil trial. If one person can go to jail for copyright violations (I don't think that is a just punishment) then the leader(s) of a company violating copyright sould also be sent to jail.
I am currently running a project for a small (less than 800 subscriber) telephone company that is looking at replacing their switch. Because of this I have been doing a lot of research on available solutions. Now, not knowing what Cisco gave you as a quote for the system (Cisco may be significantlly cheaper than a softswitch), I would suggest looking at some of the Softswitch vendors that work in the ILEC industry, MetaSwitch, Taqua, CopperCom, Santera, Etc. A few of the vendors that offer services in this market came from the corporate PBX world and the majority, if not all (currently in the reasearch process), offer VoIP in their product. From the layout of your company you may find this to be a better fit.
"I am looking to have at least the following capabilities:
-Auto attendant
-Handle a PRI (hopefully allow forwarding of old PBX DIDs)
-Handle long distance T1 (we would initially segment off some channels from our current PBX)
-Handle WAN Traffic so we could utilize our unused channels for long distance from other locations
-Forwarding of voicemails to email
Nice optional features:
-Web based GUI for voicemail administration
-GUI call manager
Of the list of options that you are looking for, the only two that I'm not sure of availability with a Softswitch solution is the auto attendant and the voice mail forwarding (I think the voice mail forwarding is available, not positive). Also, a softswitch could provide more flexibility than a limited PBX system. I'm not sure if this is a better option, or even if a softswitch would fit into your system, but I thought I'd throw it out there as a potential option.
When I started my initial research into switch vendors I found this site Sipcenter.com was a useful resource for identifying potential vendors, although a few of the links are dead from the market fall. They have a section for IP PBX vendors, it may help you find a solution.
My recommendation, if you haven't already done this, is to put together a list of 10 - 12 potential vendors and send them a RFI/RFP. You may find a RFI/RFP process to be a valuable way to not only find a good solution, but provide you with the information to sway your boss(es).
Mass has nothing to do with the speed that an object falls. Gravity works equally on all particles within an object and all of the particles accelerate at the same speed. For terminal velocity, which occurs outside of a vacuum, the maximum velocity reached by an object is also not determined by the objects mass. Terminal velocity is determined by other factors, including the surface area and aerodynamics of the object, not the mass of the object.
A close friend of mine from college works for a large government contractor in the State College area doing programming. His wife also works for the same and does UNIX sys admin. The main reason they chose that out of collge was the rural area.
Also, Findlay, OH has a Microsoft Office (Formerly Great Plains Solomon). They might be hiring. Findlay is surrounded by small villages and isn't that big itself either. Also, has larger offices for Cooper Tire and Marathon.
First, there is no substitute for exposure to a great math teacher. I had the fortune to have had a couple great math teachers through elementary and high school that led me to major in math in college.
Second, knowing a few tricks isn't enough. Understanding the tricks and why they work is the key to improving your math skills. Beyond access to a teacher to help you with this, you may want to try some resources available on the web like MIT's OpenCourseWare. They have a lot of information available on their courses, including lecture notes and text books. However, quite a few of their courses online deal with mathematical theory and may not fit with what you are looking for, try some of their "applied" courses.
Third, as one previous poster mentioned, understanding algebra will help with breaking larger calculations into smaller, and easier, parts to calculate quickly in your head. A good source for learning materials would be a local college book store. Focus on algebra textbooks that cover the basics and how to teach them (If a local college offers Education majors, they should have at least one course that will fit your needs, find out which course and the accompanying books they recommend).
Finally, go to your local high school and find out what text they use in their first year algebra classes. If you mainly what to be able to calculate angles or lengths of object sides quickly, texts for high school geometry and trigonometry classes will offer more information. Understanding these texts will help you to improve.
I hope this helps.
I too haven't seen a response, but I believe the reason is that SCO did not identify any parts of System V code that were copied. They only identified sections from AIX and/or Dynix as being copied into Linux.
Basically, SCO changed from saying that the code from System V is in Linux to saying whatever any company developed and distributed with a Unix OS is a derivative work of System V and therefore owned by SCO. With this logic, any code that IBM developed for services on their Unix OS'es is now owned by SCO. This is such an idiotic argument that it's hard for me to think of a good way to rebuke it, other than "Are You F-ing Nuts?"
"It's "not a 'con". Well, it kind of is. But it isn't. Kinda. Sorta. Not really."
Should I put on, or take off my Tin Hat?
Well, I'm not positive on this for the differences between the satellites for DirecTV and DirecWay, but the angle and degree of elevation for any satellite dish is dictated by the satellite you are receiving from and your location. Potentially the satellites for both services are close enough where the difference won't matter, but I just don't know with out doing the research required on the satellites and the reception capabilities of the DirecWay dish.
As far as running the cable into the house, that depends on if the first install was done correctly and if the current feeds run to the same room that you want your internet access in. But, running RG-6 coax, which I believe is the cable of choice for this installation, is not hard unless your house's layout makes it difficult. The only thing you truely should consider is proper grounding, preferebly bonding to the existing electric ground around your power meter. But grounding to the copper pipes of your water system is considered acceptable practice in most areas.
dslreports.com has a specific forum for DirecWay.
Dslreports.com
Actually, satellites utilize sound frequencies, not light. Specifically, DirecWay uses 1210 MHz, 1330 MHz and 1405 MHz on the Galaxy 3c satellite.
DirecWay (Spelling?) requires a second dish.