First, you'll need something to convert the VGA signals to the lcd pannel's format. This format isn't hard, but you have some interesting timing windows on some parts. However, I'm not aware of any commercial chips that will do this. There has got to be some, since there are a larege class of VGA LCD monitors out there. I'd start looking in databooks to try to find them.
Another option would be to get a ISA/PCI card that will drive a flat pannel LCD directly. This will almost certainly involve some tricky custom cables to make it work, and you'll likely have a fairly short cable run (on the order of 1-2 feet, sometimes 3 or more is possible, but when I've seen it done there is extreme ghosting).
If all you want is a battery sipping device, I'm very happy with my NEC MobileGear2 MC/R430. This is what NEC sells in this country as a Mobile Pro 750C (well, more or less). It has about a 14 hour battery life, decent screen (640x240), tiny form factor, etc. It normally runs Windows CE, but I have mine running NetBSD/hpcmips and it works great. Even X works, but I have my large flash disk on order to be able to run that.
The IBM z50 is also a good choice. It too is a MIPS based Windows CE machine. Runs a little cheaper than the MobilePros (since IBM dumped them) and has about as good a battery life (10 hours rather than 14) under NetBSD/hpcmips. It has a better screen too, but the keyboard has an odd touch to it.
Good luck. If you don't have the datasheet for your LCD screen, you may be in a lot of trouble.
If a video store folded, could they sell the rental records?
This one, at least there's an answer to: no. Those renting Videos are required by law to keep the rental records confidential and not share them with third parties.
If you can get NSI to actually transfer your domain name to a third party entity. We've been trying for MONTHS to do this and they have not been too keen to do this (although they are keen on forcing us to pay the renewal fee). Grump.
"Pre internet" days? GIF isn't nearly that old. Yes. In the days before the internet was widespread. the internet is literally 6 orders of magnitude larger today than it was in 1990 when gif first started making inroads.
Ridiculous. They've been around since about 1987, sonny. So are you trying to tell me that 13 years in this industry isn't forever?
I seriously doubt that ANYBODY has been licensing GIF for 12 years like another poster announced. It wasn't until 1993 or 1994 that Unisys started going after the unix compress command, and wasn't for two or three years after that (1998 or so) that Unisys started sending out demands for patent licensing to websites.
I've been on the internet since 1986 when the school I was at connected to the internet, so watch who you are calling sonny.:-)
From the looks of the web page, and my small knowledge of Japanese, it appears that the machine is based on The Hitachi SH-3 or SH-4 processor. There's a Linux port to that chip, so it looks like they've just ported it to their box.
I usually use Jim Breen's WWWJDIC at http://www.dgs.monash.e du.au/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/jwb/wwwjdic?9T to do the translation for me. It is very rough and you'll need to know some Japanese to understand it completely. But to get the gist of what is being said, it is quite useful.
Actually, I use a OMCRON software called HONYAKU to do most of my Japanese English translations, but this page is too big for me to properly translate using HONYAKU, since I'd have to post the results somewhere and I don't want to get slashdotted:-)
Back in the pre internet days, compuserve developed the gif format. When the internet came along, and images were flowing in the newsgroups, they were almost exclusively gifs. So, when the www came about, it needed some format to have the images in, and gif was the only game in town. Sure, other formats were around, but none could beat the simplicity and ease of use for GIF. It was a lossless format that everybody loved. So the early browsers adopted it as their standard image format. Only later did they add other image formats such as TIFF and JPEG.
Fast forward to today. In the computer business, things that work are never changed until something new comes along. There was such a huge infrastructure in gifs that other formats have taken a while to catch on. jpegs have been well implemented for a while now in most browsers, as have other image formats. It is only recently that UNISYS has started to see gold and is trying to enforce its patents. At first they were too meak and everybody blew them off, just like everybody blew them off when they tried to enforce the patent against compress(1). Well, they didn't completely blow them off, some people went out and wrote other, non-patented algorythms in what would become gzip(1). Now that the internet is more visible, it seems that they have desided to be more agressive in trying to milk money out of this cash cow. I predict that a new format will displace.gifs in the next few months/years. It may be a format we already have, or it may be a new one.
So that's why people still use.gif files. They've been around for ever, there are a zillion tools and they are about the best supported format in a wide range of browsers. Times will change.
One of the many goals of the GPL is to promote the freedom of the code. However, to gain that freedom, the GPL imposes some rather onerous restrictions of derived works which is rather expansive. These restrictions are so restrictive in nature that one cannot write GPL'd code which calls proprietary code if one doesn't have the rights to use distribute that proprietary code. This significantly limits the ability of people on proprietary systems to contribute free software under the GPL. Please explain how this helps to further software freedom.
There are several questions here. 1) Is the GPL compatible enough with the LGPL to convert one to the other? No. You cannot convert code covered by the GPL to the LGPL and fullfill all the terms and condistions of the GPL.
2) Can I use GPL'd code with non-gpl'd code. Generally one cannot do this and distribute the results. The GPL requires that you be able produce the source code to the entire program. If you must link in non-OSS things into that code, then you cannot distribute that code and therefore cannot distribute the derived work under the GPL. However, such an exterme reading of the GPL is generally only enforced when it suits the needs of the FSF to do so. There are several programs distribtued that link against libc on system that don't have a OSS libc available, yet no stink has been raised here. At best what the dividing line is is poorly defined, although there are examples both ways that can be sited.
3) Can I change the license terms of a hunk of code because I find it useful and don't like the terms that I got the code under. It sure would be useful if I could change the XXX to YYY. No. You are not the owner of the intellectual property. Only the IP owner can change the terms under which the IP is distributed. Many authors will allow multiple different licenses, but some will not. You must get permission from the owner of the IP to release it under different terms. Or more accurately, you must get a license from the IP owner allowing you to distribute it with the terms that you wish to distribute it under.
I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advise. You should see a license legal professional for that.
Whether one transmits at 1500 mW or 4000 mW is not really relevant. My point is that when there are enough people trying to do this long-range stuff (even at 1500 mW), the bandwidth will eventually get clogged enough to cause chaos.
It turns out that this isn't a big deal. Most wireless cards today use direct sequencing similar to the CDMA telephones. So if you have interferrence, it will be ignored if you have network ids and different pseudo random number sequences.
Also, the high gain antenna needed to shoot a long distance are highly directional. The 24dBi antenna that I have on my roof has a spread of about 5degrees of useful power. Since it is so small, the area that I'm "polluting" is somewhat small. Also, since they are so highly directional your antenna would have to be both in the line of site between the two sites as well as looking at one end or the other. Since these conditions are so hard to hit, even in crowded areas the chances of interferrence is low. And when you are interferring, you just pick a different network ID and the radios automatically discard the extra traffic. 2mbps is a lot of bandwidth and there's likele plenty for everyone.
Yes. It is legal to use it in this manner. We in the village have one wireless link that uses old WaveLAN cards to shoot 5 miles (that's 8km). These frequencies are very picky. If you have trees in the way, you have to either use a higher gain antenna or cut the trees down. Snow can cause problems. However, despite the problems, it sure is a lot faster than a phone line, and cheaper on a monthly basis.
We're using 24dB dish mesh antennas on each end due to the tree problem. W/o the trees in the way, we could easily shoot the 5 miles with a simple yagi 15dB antenna on both ends.
Once we get out tower permit, we'll be putting up the anetenna to about 50' above the ground and, hopefully, switching back to the yagi and trying to bring on someone who is 8 miles away. Right now the antenna is only about 20' above ground level. We figured we'd need about 20-30 more to get above the trees. 10' above the roof is easy. 30-40' is much harder.
Even that isn't absolute. If someone is selling a mirricle thawing device for $200 a pop and all it is an aluminium tray and I tell people that they ripped me off for $195 and that they people can go to their lumberyard and get a hunk of substantially similar aluminium for $5, I'm not violating the law. My speach may be intended to harm (or actually harm) sales of said $200 device. Yet, it is truthful and accurate for the most part, although I might have to prove that I can get a hunk of Al from for $5.00 and that it too acts in a way substantially similar to the $200 item.
Part of the intent to cause harm must also be coupled with falseness.
Another example. Let us say that I see a politician screwing an intern. Let us further say that I took picutres and that I hate this politician. Let us also assume that this was in a aplace that a court of law would consider to be public, so said photography is legal. If I then release those pictures with the intent to harm that person politically, I'm well within my first amendment rights (assuming the pictures weren't indecent) to do so, even though it is clear that there was intent to harm this person. What saves me here is that I'm speaking truthful speach.
As an analogy, posting the source code to DeCSS would therefore be legal, absent the trade secret agreements and DMCA. It cleraly harms the MPAA, or so they would have you believe. Maybe the person releasing the code may be trying to harm them. Yet it is truthful speach. It is actually how you get around certain protections in the technology. No one can argue with that.
Reading the ruling, and if it is sustained on appeal, the case for overturning this part of the DMCA isn't completely clear. The ruling spells out that the government can regulate speach when there is a clear and present danger. When there is a compelling state interest in so doing. It found that in that case, no such clear and compelling interest was at stake and that the export regulations were overly broad and restrictive. There's a lot of wiggle room there for a clever lawyer to argue "Yes, he did rule it was protect speach, but deeper down in the ruling he ruled this because the government failed to show a compelling need to restrict the speach. In this case, the compelling need is clear...."
My final example is more mondane. Let us say I discover my friend's wife is sleeping around. Let us say that I tell people about this, word gets back to the friend, who is so distraught he commits suiside. Let us say even that I told him directly about this, to make it more interesting. Can the heirs of his estate or the state authorities sue me for causing his death? No, of course not. My speach clearly harmed this person, yet it was truthful, or I believed it to be truthful.
Things generally aren't as simple and clear cut as people are making them sound in many of the postings so far.
Since a NetBSD port is now done, an OpenBSD port cannot be far behind.
However the NetBSD mips tree has diverged somewhat from the OpenBSD mips tree. So doing a port would require porting most of the NetBSD mips tree over to OpenBSD and updating the arc and pmax ports. I've long wanted to do this, but I've not had the time it takes to actually do the work to make this happen.
The press release said that this is optional. I know that this will be good for those people that wish to keep all their licensing P's and Q's in a row. Some of my systems came with Win98 preinstalled, so running them with vmware isn't a problem. Other of my systems didn't, and I had to go out and buy an extra copy of win98. If I had the option to purchase direct from vmware, it would save me a trip.
The only down side I can see to this is if, in the future, the purchase doesn't become optional.
Also, what's the whether recorded or not bit referring to?
When you enter into a legal agreement transfering the sale of something, generally one records that sale with the county courthouse where the transfer takes place. When we bought our house, we recorded that in the local county clerk's office. Likewise with the cars we've purchased. I don't know if there is a federal thing like this for intellectual property things, but I suppose that it is substantially similar.
Thinking about it, they could do any of the following things:
Modify the BIOS to only boot off the SanDisk and remove the ability to break into qnx.
Not stick the ide connector on the board. This is the easiest to do.
Pump goo into the ide connector on the board.
Use high secuirty bolts rather than regular phillips head screws.
Hotglue the case closed.
Lock out all access to the keyboard during the BIOS boot.
Nothing. Make it a legal matter and harrass those publishing information about it.
If they do #1, then one could easily get around that by cutting traces on the board that enables the SanDisk chips and put an IDE drive into the unit jumpered as slave.
If they don't stick the ide connector onto the board, a quick trip to the local electronics parts store will fix this, plus a few minutes with a soldering iron. This will radically cut down the number of people who are able and willing to do the mod. This sort of change is the easiest to order in a mfg process.
If they pump goo into the socket, one could unstick the connector one pin at a time and put your own back on. Of course both this and the previous paragraph assume that the iopener has pin through board mounting. With surface mount for the ide connector, it is much harder to do either of these.
High security bits for my screw driver are available at the same local electronics store that I get my ide connectors from:-). Actually, I already own a complete set of all the weirdest ones that I've ever seen.
Hot glue can be cut with a good knife or dremmel tool.
The next to the last item is the same as the first.
The last one kicks it into the socio-ethical realm since nothing has changed.
One can also jumper the SanDisk from secondary to primary relatively easy. The IDE CD adapters can do this by shorting one of the pins to ground or Vcc (I don't have my docs handy).
Recent US court cases have shown that the mere name isn't enough to cause a trademark infringement. tnn.com was owned by some folks whose initials were TNN. TNN the cable company tried to take them to court and they lost.
Similarly, clue.com was registered by clue computing several years ago. Hasbro tried to abuse the NSI dispute policy to steal it from Eric Robison, owner of Clue Computing. Eric got a court injunction against NSI. Later Hasbro came back to Eric and sued him in a distant state based on some consultin work he did for a company that is based there. They lost that case as well.
The main crux of both of these cases was that the domain name was registered in good faith and wasn't intended to trade on the trademark. Both the names were legitimately derived from the business that registered them.
I don't know how much the TNN folks spent on their legal defense, but I do know that Clue Computing has put a pile of money down trying to defend clue.com.
There's a lot of misinformation about this topic in the public today. Mostly because many "bad actors" got in and were swatted so the trade mark holders thought they could go after the "good actors" with domain names that matched their trademarks. They were wrong.
The mere existance of a domain name that matches, partially, a trademark does not, in and of itself, constitute infringement.
While this news is a little boring to me as a FreeBSD user (we've had support for the adaptech Ultra160 boards in FreeBSD since January), I do think it is cool that adaptec is supporting linux so openly. It is a shame that they don't mention that this Linux driver is just a simple port of Justin Gibb's FreeBSD driver.
The adaptech 19160 with Justin's driver scream. And at about $160 for the white box version, this is a good, cheap, reliable FAST scsi card.
Glad to see Adaptec is allowing Linux users in on the game too. Hate to see only FreeBSD folks benefit:-)
Hmmm, while this is somewhat boring news to those of us that run FreeBSD and have had Ultra 160 support for the new adaptech drivers since January, I must say I'm impressed with their 19160 board. While crippled in software under Windows, it isn't crippled on FreeBSD and runs like a bat out of ****. I got mine white box from MicroExpress for $160.00. Great price, and very competitive with all the other cards.
BTW, the Linux driver is just a port of Justin Gibb's FreeBSD driver. Justin does good work, which is why I went for the 19160 board when I was putting together a system recently.
I'd like to see the math behind these claims. In general, when one thinks one is sending something faster than the speed of light, one has neglected to take into account some factor. All claims that I've seen in the past have crumbled when shown that the distance distortion, for example, when taken into account shows that the signal propigates slower than the speed of light.
This is not correct. None of the work of AT&T Unix was in the public domain. What BSD did was to effectively rewrite all of the code. Bad things started happening when they tried to change the requirement for an AT&T source lisense. Lawsuits and the like, which were settled in such a way as to remove the offending intellectual property of AT&T.
Once a license is granted, it cannot be revoked unless there's a revokation clause.
New versions of a product can be issued under whatever license the copyright holders want.
The 2.5" disk do have the same cable pinout as the 3.5" drives. Most of the 3.5->2.5 adapters won't work in this box for two reasons. First, they have the wrong genders for the connections. Second, the biggest difference between 3.5" drives and 2.5" drives is that the 3.5" drives need +12V and +5V, while the 2.5" drives take only +5V. Since this is the standard (almost) 44 pin 2.5" conenctor, you don't have a +12V signal to give to your 3.5" drive.
Sun's mandtool, which used rpc to farm out jobs based on the load of remove machines, existed at least in 1986 when I was a sophomore in college and the Suns arrived on campus. I seem to recall seeing a 1980 copyright on it, but
There was also a language called LINDA that ran on VMS and other idle machines at one of the government labs in the 1986-1989 time frame.
There were several VMS and Unix distributed make programs/wrappers that farmed work out to clusters based on the load average or other criteria of idleness. Again, this is in the late 1980's time frame.
As someone who read info-vax and comp.sources.unix during this time frame, I'm surprised that others haven't pointed out the archives of the early days of USENET.
I thought the seven deadly countries weren't on the net, since you can't export anything to them. Something to do with acceptible use tarrifs requiring that you cannot connect your network to a network in a country on the perscribed list. Am I right, or are Cuba, Libia, Iraq, et al on the net w/o me realizing it...
Slashdot Mirror
First, you'll need something to convert the VGA signals to the lcd pannel's format. This format isn't hard, but you have some interesting timing windows on some parts. However, I'm not aware of any commercial chips that will do this. There has got to be some, since there are a larege class of VGA LCD monitors out there. I'd start looking in databooks to try to find them.
Another option would be to get a ISA/PCI card that will drive a flat pannel LCD directly. This will almost certainly involve some tricky custom cables to make it work, and you'll likely have a fairly short cable run (on the order of 1-2 feet, sometimes 3 or more is possible, but when I've seen it done there is extreme ghosting).
If all you want is a battery sipping device, I'm very happy with my NEC MobileGear2 MC/R430. This is what NEC sells in this country as a Mobile Pro 750C (well, more or less). It has about a 14 hour battery life, decent screen (640x240), tiny form factor, etc. It normally runs Windows CE, but I have mine running NetBSD/hpcmips and it works great. Even X works, but I have my large flash disk on order to be able to run that.
The IBM z50 is also a good choice. It too is a MIPS based Windows CE machine. Runs a little cheaper than the MobilePros (since IBM dumped them) and has about as good a battery life (10 hours rather than 14) under NetBSD/hpcmips. It has a better screen too, but the keyboard has an odd touch to it.
Good luck. If you don't have the datasheet for your LCD screen, you may be in a lot of trouble.
If a video store folded, could they sell the rental records?
This one, at least there's an answer to: no. Those renting Videos are required by law to keep the rental records confidential and not share them with third parties.
Many court rulings have shown that people with 1-800 numbers *DO* own their telephone numbers.
Also, one should note that the lawyer has his metaphores mixed up. The real phone numbers of the internet are the IP addresses.
If you can get NSI to actually transfer your domain name to a third party entity. We've been trying for MONTHS to do this and they have not been too keen to do this (although they are keen on forcing us to pay the renewal fee). Grump.
Yes. In the days before the internet was widespread. the internet is literally 6 orders of magnitude larger today than it was in 1990 when gif first started making inroads.
Ridiculous. They've been around since about 1987, sonny.
So are you trying to tell me that 13 years in this industry isn't forever?
I seriously doubt that ANYBODY has been licensing GIF for 12 years like another poster announced. It wasn't until 1993 or 1994 that Unisys started going after the unix compress command, and wasn't for two or three years after that (1998 or so) that Unisys started sending out demands for patent licensing to websites.
I've been on the internet since 1986 when the school I was at connected to the internet, so watch who you are calling sonny. :-)
I usually use Jim Breen's WWWJDIC at http://www.dgs.monash.e du.au/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/jwb/wwwjdic?9T to do the translation for me. It is very rough and you'll need to know some Japanese to understand it completely. But to get the gist of what is being said, it is quite useful.
Actually, I use a OMCRON software called HONYAKU to do most of my Japanese English translations, but this page is too big for me to properly translate using HONYAKU, since I'd have to post the results somewhere and I don't want to get slashdotted :-)
It definitely looks like a very cool thing!
Fast forward to today. In the computer business, things that work are never changed until something new comes along. There was such a huge infrastructure in gifs that other formats have taken a while to catch on. jpegs have been well implemented for a while now in most browsers, as have other image formats. It is only recently that UNISYS has started to see gold and is trying to enforce its patents. At first they were too meak and everybody blew them off, just like everybody blew them off when they tried to enforce the patent against compress(1). Well, they didn't completely blow them off, some people went out and wrote other, non-patented algorythms in what would become gzip(1). Now that the internet is more visible, it seems that they have desided to be more agressive in trying to milk money out of this cash cow. I predict that a new format will displace .gifs in the next few months/years. It may be a format we already have, or it may be a new one.
So that's why people still use .gif files. They've been around for ever, there are a zillion tools and they are about the best supported format in a wide range of browsers. Times will change.
One of the many goals of the GPL is to promote the freedom of the code. However, to gain that freedom, the GPL imposes some rather onerous restrictions of derived works which is rather expansive. These restrictions are so restrictive in nature that one cannot write GPL'd code which calls proprietary code if one doesn't have the rights to use distribute that proprietary code. This significantly limits the ability of people on proprietary systems to contribute free software under the GPL. Please explain how this helps to further software freedom.
1) Is the GPL compatible enough with the LGPL to convert one to the other?
No. You cannot convert code covered by the GPL to the LGPL and fullfill all the terms and condistions of the GPL.
2) Can I use GPL'd code with non-gpl'd code.
Generally one cannot do this and distribute the results. The GPL requires that you be able produce the source code to the entire program. If you must link in non-OSS things into that code, then you cannot distribute that code and therefore cannot distribute the derived work under the GPL.
However, such an exterme reading of the GPL is generally only enforced when it suits the needs of the FSF to do so. There are several programs distribtued that link against libc on system that don't have a OSS libc available, yet no stink has been raised here. At best what the dividing line is is poorly defined, although there are examples both ways that can be sited.
3) Can I change the license terms of a hunk of code because I find it useful and don't like the terms that I got the code under. It sure would be useful if I could change the XXX to YYY.
No. You are not the owner of the intellectual property. Only the IP owner can change the terms under which the IP is distributed. Many authors will allow multiple different licenses, but some will not. You must get permission from the owner of the IP to release it under different terms. Or more accurately, you must get a license from the IP owner allowing you to distribute it with the terms that you wish to distribute it under.
I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advise. You should see a license legal professional for that.
Whether one transmits at 1500 mW or 4000 mW is not really relevant. My point is that when there are enough people trying to do this
long-range stuff (even at 1500 mW), the bandwidth will eventually get clogged enough to cause chaos.
It turns out that this isn't a big deal. Most wireless cards today use direct sequencing similar to the CDMA telephones. So if you have interferrence, it will be ignored if you have network ids and different pseudo random number sequences.
Also, the high gain antenna needed to shoot a long distance are highly directional. The 24dBi antenna that I have on my roof has a spread of about 5degrees of useful power. Since it is so small, the area that I'm "polluting" is somewhat small. Also, since they are so highly directional your antenna would have to be both in the line of site between the two sites as well as looking at one end or the other. Since these conditions are so hard to hit, even in crowded areas the chances of interferrence is low. And when you are interferring, you just pick a different network ID and the radios automatically discard the extra traffic. 2mbps is a lot of bandwidth and there's likele plenty for everyone.
is it legal to actually use it in this manner?
Yes. It is legal to use it in this manner. We in the village have one wireless link that uses old WaveLAN cards to shoot 5 miles (that's 8km). These frequencies are very picky. If you have trees in the way, you have to either use a higher gain antenna or cut the trees down. Snow can cause problems. However, despite the problems, it sure is a lot faster than a phone line, and cheaper on a monthly basis.
We're using 24dB dish mesh antennas on each end due to the tree problem. W/o the trees in the way, we could easily shoot the 5 miles with a simple yagi 15dB antenna on both ends.
Once we get out tower permit, we'll be putting up the anetenna to about 50' above the ground and, hopefully, switching back to the yagi and trying to bring on someone who is 8 miles away. Right now the antenna is only about 20' above ground level. We figured we'd need about 20-30 more to get above the trees. 10' above the roof is easy. 30-40' is much harder.
Even that isn't absolute. If someone is selling a mirricle thawing device for $200 a pop and all it is an aluminium tray and I tell people that they ripped me off for $195 and that they people can go to their lumberyard and get a hunk of substantially similar aluminium for $5, I'm not violating the law. My speach may be intended to harm (or actually harm) sales of said $200 device. Yet, it is truthful and accurate for the most part, although I might have to prove that I can get a hunk of Al from for $5.00 and that it too acts in a way substantially similar to the $200 item.
Part of the intent to cause harm must also be coupled with falseness.
Another example. Let us say that I see a politician screwing an intern. Let us further say that I took picutres and that I hate this politician. Let us also assume that this was in a aplace that a court of law would consider to be public, so said photography is legal. If I then release those pictures with the intent to harm that person politically, I'm well within my first amendment rights (assuming the pictures weren't indecent) to do so, even though it is clear that there was intent to harm this person. What saves me here is that I'm speaking truthful speach.
As an analogy, posting the source code to DeCSS would therefore be legal, absent the trade secret agreements and DMCA. It cleraly harms the MPAA, or so they would have you believe. Maybe the person releasing the code may be trying to harm them. Yet it is truthful speach. It is actually how you get around certain protections in the technology. No one can argue with that.
Reading the ruling, and if it is sustained on appeal, the case for overturning this part of the DMCA isn't completely clear. The ruling spells out that the government can regulate speach when there is a clear and present danger. When there is a compelling state interest in so doing. It found that in that case, no such clear and compelling interest was at stake and that the export regulations were overly broad and restrictive. There's a lot of wiggle room there for a clever lawyer to argue "Yes, he did rule it was protect speach, but deeper down in the ruling he ruled this because the government failed to show a compelling need to restrict the speach. In this case, the compelling need is clear...."
My final example is more mondane. Let us say I discover my friend's wife is sleeping around. Let us say that I tell people about this, word gets back to the friend, who is so distraught he commits suiside. Let us say even that I told him directly about this, to make it more interesting. Can the heirs of his estate or the state authorities sue me for causing his death? No, of course not. My speach clearly harmed this person, yet it was truthful, or I believed it to be truthful.
Things generally aren't as simple and clear cut as people are making them sound in many of the postings so far.
port cannot be far behind.
However the NetBSD mips tree has diverged somewhat from the OpenBSD mips tree. So doing a port would require porting most of the NetBSD mips tree over to OpenBSD and updating the arc and pmax ports.
I've long wanted to do this, but I've not had the time it takes to actually do the work to make this happen.
Warner Losh
OpenBSD/arc maintainer
The press release said that this is optional. I know that this will be good for those people that wish to keep all their licensing P's and Q's in a row. Some of my systems came with Win98 preinstalled, so running them with vmware isn't a problem. Other of my systems didn't, and I had to go out and buy an extra copy of win98. If I had the option to purchase direct from vmware, it would save me a trip.
The only down side I can see to this is if, in the future, the purchase doesn't become optional.
When you enter into a legal agreement transfering the sale of something, generally one records that sale with the county courthouse where the transfer takes place. When we bought our house, we recorded that in the local county clerk's office. Likewise with the cars we've purchased. I don't know if there is a federal thing like this for intellectual property things, but I suppose that it is substantially similar.
Thinking about it, they could do any of the following things:
If they do #1, then one could easily get around that by cutting traces on the board that enables the SanDisk chips and put an IDE drive into the unit jumpered as slave.
If they don't stick the ide connector onto the board, a quick trip to the local electronics parts store will fix this, plus a few minutes with a soldering iron. This will radically cut down the number of people who are able and willing to do the mod. This sort of change is the easiest to order in a mfg process.
If they pump goo into the socket, one could unstick the connector one pin at a time and put your own back on. Of course both this and the previous paragraph assume that the iopener has pin through board mounting. With surface mount for the ide connector, it is much harder to do either of these.
High security bits for my screw driver are available at the same local electronics store that I get my ide connectors from :-). Actually, I already own a complete set of all the weirdest ones that I've ever seen.
Hot glue can be cut with a good knife or dremmel tool.
The next to the last item is the same as the first.
The last one kicks it into the socio-ethical realm since nothing has changed.
One can also jumper the SanDisk from secondary to primary relatively easy. The IDE CD adapters can do this by shorting one of the pins to ground or Vcc (I don't have my docs handy).
Recent US court cases have shown that the mere name isn't enough to cause a trademark infringement. tnn.com was owned by some folks whose initials were TNN. TNN the cable company tried to take them to court and they lost.
Similarly, clue.com was registered by clue computing several years ago. Hasbro tried to abuse the NSI dispute policy to steal it from Eric Robison, owner of Clue Computing. Eric got a court injunction against NSI. Later Hasbro came back to Eric and sued him in a distant state based on some consultin work he did for a company that is based there. They lost that case as well.
The main crux of both of these cases was that the domain name was registered in good faith and wasn't intended to trade on the trademark. Both the names were legitimately derived from the business that registered them.
I don't know how much the TNN folks spent on their legal defense, but I do know that Clue Computing has put a pile of money down trying to defend clue.com.
There's a lot of misinformation about this topic in the public today. Mostly because many "bad actors" got in and were swatted so the trade mark holders thought they could go after the "good actors" with domain names that matched their trademarks. They were wrong.
The mere existance of a domain name that matches, partially, a trademark does not, in and of itself, constitute infringement.
However, sometimes it costs lots of $$$ to fight.
While this news is a little boring to me as a FreeBSD user (we've had support for the adaptech Ultra160 boards in FreeBSD since January), I do think it is cool that adaptec is supporting linux so openly. It is a shame that they don't mention that this Linux driver is just a simple port of Justin Gibb's FreeBSD driver.
:-)
The adaptech 19160 with Justin's driver scream. And at about $160 for the white box version, this is a good, cheap, reliable FAST scsi card.
Glad to see Adaptec is allowing Linux users in on the game too. Hate to see only FreeBSD folks benefit
Hmmm, while this is somewhat boring news to those of us that run FreeBSD and have had Ultra 160 support for the new adaptech drivers since January, I must say I'm impressed with their 19160 board. While crippled in software under Windows, it isn't crippled on FreeBSD and runs like a bat out of ****. I got mine white box from MicroExpress for $160.00. Great price, and very competitive with all the other cards.
BTW, the Linux driver is just a port of Justin Gibb's FreeBSD driver. Justin does good work, which is why I went for the 19160 board when I was putting together a system recently.
I'd like to see the math behind these claims. In general, when one thinks one is sending something faster than the speed of light, one has neglected to take into account some factor. All claims that I've seen in the past have crumbled when shown that the distance distortion, for example, when taken into account shows that the signal propigates slower than the speed of light.
This is not correct. None of the work of AT&T Unix was in the public domain. What BSD did was to effectively rewrite all of the code. Bad things started happening when they tried to change the requirement for an AT&T source lisense. Lawsuits and the like, which were settled in such a way as to remove the offending intellectual property of AT&T.
Once a license is granted, it cannot be revoked unless there's a revokation clause.
New versions of a product can be issued under whatever license the copyright holders want.
The 2.5" disk do have the same cable pinout as the 3.5" drives. Most of the 3.5->2.5 adapters won't work in this box for two reasons. First, they have the wrong genders for the connections. Second, the biggest difference between 3.5" drives and 2.5" drives is that the 3.5" drives need +12V and +5V, while the 2.5" drives take only +5V. Since this is the standard (almost) 44 pin 2.5" conenctor, you don't have a +12V signal to give to your 3.5" drive.
Sun's mandtool, which used rpc to farm out jobs based on the load of remove machines, existed at least in 1986 when I was a sophomore in college and the Suns arrived on campus. I seem to recall seeing a 1980 copyright on it, but
There was also a language called LINDA that ran on VMS and other idle machines at one of the government labs in the 1986-1989 time frame.
There were several VMS and Unix distributed make programs/wrappers that farmed work out to clusters based on the load average or other criteria of idleness. Again, this is in the late 1980's time frame.
As someone who read info-vax and comp.sources.unix during this time frame, I'm surprised that others haven't pointed out the archives of the early days of USENET.
I thought the seven deadly countries weren't on the net, since you can't export anything to them.
Something to do with acceptible use tarrifs requiring that you cannot connect your network to a network in a country on the perscribed list. Am I right, or are Cuba, Libia, Iraq, et al on the net w/o me realizing it...
Warner
Look at egcs vs gcc. If the folks behind the scenes hadn't come to an arrangement, then we'd have two GPL'd compilers out there.
Also, look at xemacs vs emacs. Both of them are derived from emacs and that represents an even longer running fork.
People have the screwiest notions of what a license can do for you.