Agree. He was roaming because of the cell tower he was connected to.
I'm surprised that the roaming was automatic. My old phones would not automatically switch to a non-carrier approved cell tower, and when it did go "off network" it would warn me about possible roaming charges. My even older phone used to play the roaming carriers' jingle before the phone call (Old analog network). Anyway, it's good to know that I should be careful since my old employer actually represents a cruise line at port and I still visit my colleagues.
Technically speaking when you are on the ship you are not really domestic anymore. Most of the cruise lines that I dealt with where foreign flag vessels. But this has been open for interpretation by INS officer at the scene and I only dealt with crew visas, so your mileage may vary...
It works great when your netbook and your beefy computer are on the same LAN, but it's horrible when you're remotely accessing over the Internet via VPN.
No Machine's NX server makes X bearable with VPN.
I also had good results from VNC, so it makes me wonder if X is losing its "networking advantage."
It's not the improbable "full-out attack" that I worry about, it's the more likely scenario of "probing" attacks or isolated incidents.
Reagan's mutual assured destruction theory does have it limits. The old days of us versus them is over. Now we have allies being able to form alliances with countries not so friendly towards us. So the idea that all our allies will automatically support us is something I would not like to test. In fact, I believe Bush's belief in our allies automatically supporting our actions got us in the mess we are in now...
So we have to wait for ALL our satellites to be disabled before we can retaliate?
Maybe the better solution would be to provide an immediate response to the FIRST satellite being destroy by destroying one of theirs.
If the motive for destroying a satellite is to hamper our ability to monitor their attack, wouldn't it best if we also hampered theirs?
Besides keeping the squirmishes to the level of a couple satellites provides deniability to the world stage (eg. We didn't attack your satellite, you must have experienced a malfunction).
Blowing up a US satellite does not equal a first strike to a US city. It would be very hard to convince the rest of the world (much less the citizens of the US) that such a disproportional retaliation is warranted.
However, the ability to also destroy China's satellites is a nice deterrent due to the fact that retaliation is swift, proportional, and no one is vaporized in the process. Well... Not yet.
I have to agree with the GP that Obama may not have what it takes to maintain a national defense. I mean space weapons is not a hot topic at the moment, so why even bring it up?
The thing is, nobody forces anybody else to incorporate or use GPL code, there is no forcing. If you don't want to participate, then don't use it. What's so hard about that?
The fact that no one is being forced to use GPL isn't a factor. I was discussing the use of the word freedom as a synonym for publicly accessable source code.
Personally, I'm okay with the GPL. But I have to point out that the "no one is forcing you..." tact has the same effectiveness as "No one held a gun to your head and made you use Windows."
This "infrastructure is expensive" argument is 20 years out of date.
I would not call it out of date, just needs a little tweaking.
Your example was that Vonage was trying to connect to an existing POTS network using technology patented by Verizon. Vonage continues to exist by signing a two-year contract with VoIP inc. which will provide the POTS access. I assume that VoIP paid the required royalties and/or have the infrastructure available to provide the needed service to Vonage.
While Vonage may have provided an alternative to your POTS provider, they also accomplished this by you providing the infrastructure required to reach their servers. You have to pay for the broadband connection.
Now if you're okay with paying for your own access to the internet and don't require the use of POTS, you have access to many internet messaging services and if you have the bandwidth create your own.
But a true end-to-end solution still requires a considerable investment in infrastructure. Just look at your broadband provider, they invested heavily in providing the infrastructure to wire your house. I bet your ISP probably now offers digital phone service (I know Comcast, does and they aren't a traditional telco).
The BSD license gives freedom to the developer; the GNU license gives freedom to the code itself.
As far as I know, Code has no free will. Therefore, code can not experience freedom.
Hyperbole aside, You can think of GPL as FORCING the developer to participate in a community process and BSD as INVITING the developer to participate in a community process. BTW, It is my understanding that FreeBSD (and the other BSD) actually do get contributions back from some of the corporations that use their code.
Anyhow, I agree with the GP that there are some redefining of the word 'free' being done. In fact, I believe when people try to attribute freedom to a piece of code they really mean public and use freedom to invoke some emotion.
For example, your quote:
...with BSD, you can take code from the community, do work on top of theirs, and keep it for yourself. In a sense, you can take free code and turn it into non-free code. With GNU, you can take code from the community, and do work on top of theirs; then, you are obliged to share back. The code was free, the code stays free...
Make more sense as:
with BSD, you can take code from the community, do work on top of theirs, and keep it for yourself. In a sense, you can take public code and turn it into private code. With GNU, you can take code from the community, and do work on top of theirs; then, you are obliged to share back. The code was public, the code stays public.
The article was talking about cookies created while visiting whitehouse.gov not youtube.com/whitehouse.
Most (if not all) of the governmental IT services are provided by contractors. This rule applies to ALL governmental web sites (At least before Obama started ignoring the rules that hurts his Google friends).
Dumb question (Dumb because I can't seem to get a straight answer from T-Mobile).
T-Mobile appears to require a 2 year subscription to their data plan to purchase this phone.
This seems silly since, (1) I can't seem to find a spot without free wifi and I'll probably spend less than 1% of my time on 3G. (especially considering that the 3G only covers my neighborhood (where there is plenty of WiFi) - I live and work in "Eureka";P )
Who said anything about the corporate interests being on the official payroll?
That's like saying that the secret meeting that Cheney had in the vice-presidential office with energy industry insiders, had nothing to do with the administration's policy on energy.
But you are right, I don't see anything scandalous about Obama's handling of the DTV transition. At least nothing obvious...
When Barack Obama stocks his staff with industry insiders, it's corruption. When George W. Bush stocks his staff with industry insiders, it's just politics as usual.
When George W. Bush stocks his staff with industry insiders, who make policy decisions that directly benefit their industry, it's corruption. When Barack Obama stocks his staff with industry insiders, who make policy decisions that directly benefit their industry, it's more of the same.
I saw the red flags when Google started to get more business from the Government, after Google's CEO Eric Schmidt been seen hanging around Obama....What you didn't think YouTube duplicating CSPAN, Obama pushing for electronic health records, and publishing presidential speeches on YouTube just came out of the blue? (What no chance for Yahoo, Apple, or Microsoft to bid?)
Restrictive covenants are specified at time of purchase and or lease agreement. Don't like the terms, then go look elsewhere to live.
Your neighbors didn't just buy a house and lot, they purchased the community as well. The true purpose of the restrictive covenants is to protect the developers while they sell the housing units. Afterwards, the covenants protects the home owners investment.
Like it or not, your home's resale value is based on your neighbor's property too.
It's still a free country. No one is telling you where to live, and no one is arresting you for your opinions...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't sell yourself short. There are plenty of U.S. carriers available for your "never deal with again as long as I live" list.
Agree. He was roaming because of the cell tower he was connected to.
I'm surprised that the roaming was automatic. My old phones would not automatically switch to a non-carrier approved cell tower, and when it did go "off network" it would warn me about possible roaming charges. My even older phone used to play the roaming carriers' jingle before the phone call (Old analog network). Anyway, it's good to know that I should be careful since my old employer actually represents a cruise line at port and I still visit my colleagues.
Technically speaking when you are on the ship you are not really domestic anymore. Most of the cruise lines that I dealt with where foreign flag vessels. But this has been open for interpretation by INS officer at the scene and I only dealt with crew visas, so your mileage may vary...
Technically true.
It works great when your netbook and your beefy computer are on the same LAN, but it's horrible when you're remotely accessing over the Internet via VPN.
No Machine's NX server makes X bearable with VPN.
I also had good results from VNC, so it makes me wonder if X is losing its "networking advantage."
Careful, sledgehammers need no passwords.
It's not the improbable "full-out attack" that I worry about, it's the more likely scenario of "probing" attacks or isolated incidents.
Reagan's mutual assured destruction theory does have it limits. The old days of us versus them is over. Now we have allies being able to form alliances with countries not so friendly towards us. So the idea that all our allies will automatically support us is something I would not like to test. In fact, I believe Bush's belief in our allies automatically supporting our actions got us in the mess we are in now...
So we have to wait for ALL our satellites to be disabled before we can retaliate?
Maybe the better solution would be to provide an immediate response to the FIRST satellite being destroy by destroying one of theirs.
If the motive for destroying a satellite is to hamper our ability to monitor their attack, wouldn't it best if we also hampered theirs?
Besides keeping the squirmishes to the level of a couple satellites provides deniability to the world stage (eg. We didn't attack your satellite, you must have experienced a malfunction).
Blowing up a US satellite does not equal a first strike to a US city. It would be very hard to convince the rest of the world (much less the citizens of the US) that such a disproportional retaliation is warranted.
However, the ability to also destroy China's satellites is a nice deterrent due to the fact that retaliation is swift, proportional, and no one is vaporized in the process. Well... Not yet.
I have to agree with the GP that Obama may not have what it takes to maintain a national defense. I mean space weapons is not a hot topic at the moment, so why even bring it up?
The fact that no one is being forced to use GPL isn't a factor. I was discussing the use of the word freedom as a synonym for publicly accessable source code.
Personally, I'm okay with the GPL. But I have to point out that the "no one is forcing you..." tact has the same effectiveness as "No one held a gun to your head and made you use Windows."
I would not call it out of date, just needs a little tweaking.
Your example was that Vonage was trying to connect to an existing POTS network using technology patented by Verizon. Vonage continues to exist by signing a two-year contract with VoIP inc. which will provide the POTS access. I assume that VoIP paid the required royalties and/or have the infrastructure available to provide the needed service to Vonage.
While Vonage may have provided an alternative to your POTS provider, they also accomplished this by you providing the infrastructure required to reach their servers. You have to pay for the broadband connection.
Now if you're okay with paying for your own access to the internet and don't require the use of POTS, you have access to many internet messaging services and if you have the bandwidth create your own.
But a true end-to-end solution still requires a considerable investment in infrastructure. Just look at your broadband provider, they invested heavily in providing the infrastructure to wire your house. I bet your ISP probably now offers digital phone service (I know Comcast, does and they aren't a traditional telco).
As far as I know, Code has no free will. Therefore, code can not experience freedom.
Hyperbole aside, You can think of GPL as FORCING the developer to participate in a community process and BSD as INVITING the developer to participate in a community process. BTW, It is my understanding that FreeBSD (and the other BSD) actually do get contributions back from some of the corporations that use their code.
Anyhow, I agree with the GP that there are some redefining of the word 'free' being done. In fact, I believe when people try to attribute freedom to a piece of code they really mean public and use freedom to invoke some emotion.
For example, your quote:
Make more sense as:
with BSD, you can take code from the community, do work on top of theirs, and keep it for yourself. In a sense, you can take public code and turn it into private code. With GNU, you can take code from the community, and do work on top of theirs; then, you are obliged to share back. The code was public, the code stays public.
Well as long as the license server works at least...
This may be viewed as a disadvantage.
[humor]
Probably for as long as LabView exists. If the PL/1 versus Pascal war is any indication, you have a long wait ahead of you.
[/humor]
I have a love/hate relationship with LabView. I always considered it to be the Visual Basic of the scientific world.
A lot of times, it's too bloated, too resource hungry, and too expensive... But we buy it anyway.
On the plus side, it does instrumentation really well, and GI has a catalog full of sensors to choose from.
He may also have meant "Experimental Physics" versus "Theoretical Physics". I have practitioners of both where I work...
Agree. However, Fortran still evolves and Fortran 2003 (and 2008) is suppose to add some OO capabilities beyond encapsulation in modules.
I will point out that I've seen more Perl than Python in scientific computing. But most of my scientist coworkers tend to be older..
Fortran isn't dead yet, and it executes faster than Python.
Maybe we should say TV is the primary source of LOCAL news and weather.
The article was talking about cookies created while visiting whitehouse.gov not youtube.com/whitehouse.
Most (if not all) of the governmental IT services are provided by contractors. This rule applies to ALL governmental web sites (At least before Obama started ignoring the rules that hurts his Google friends).
Of course, if it was Microsoft providing the government video we would all be yelling conspiracy!
I also would like to know how much this is really costing tax payers (I really doubt Google does this out of the kindness of their hearts).
Dumb question (Dumb because I can't seem to get a straight answer from T-Mobile).
T-Mobile appears to require a 2 year subscription to their data plan to purchase this phone.
This seems silly since, (1) I can't seem to find a spot without free wifi and I'll probably spend less than 1% of my time on 3G. (especially considering that the 3G only covers my neighborhood (where there is plenty of WiFi) - I live and work in "Eureka" ;P )
Can I get a G1 without paying for the data plan?
Loose lips loses future invitations...
Who said anything about the corporate interests being on the official payroll?
That's like saying that the secret meeting that Cheney had in the vice-presidential office with energy industry insiders, had nothing to do with the administration's policy on energy.
But you are right, I don't see anything scandalous about Obama's handling of the DTV transition. At least nothing obvious...
When George W. Bush stocks his staff with industry insiders, who make policy decisions that directly benefit their industry, it's corruption. When Barack Obama stocks his staff with industry insiders, who make policy decisions that directly benefit their industry, it's more of the same.
I saw the red flags when Google started to get more business from the Government, after Google's CEO Eric Schmidt been seen hanging around Obama. ...What you didn't think YouTube duplicating CSPAN, Obama pushing for electronic health records, and publishing presidential speeches on YouTube just came out of the blue? (What no chance for Yahoo, Apple, or Microsoft to bid?)
Restrictive covenants are specified at time of purchase and or lease agreement. Don't like the terms, then go look elsewhere to live.
Your neighbors didn't just buy a house and lot, they purchased the community as well. The true purpose of the restrictive covenants is to protect the developers while they sell the housing units. Afterwards, the covenants protects the home owners investment.
Like it or not, your home's resale value is based on your neighbor's property too.
It's still a free country. No one is telling you where to live, and no one is arresting you for your opinions...