Most device makers use ancient versions of software, once they pull it in they rarely touch it.
I encourage people to use the (A)GPLv3, but thats not going to change anything in the short-medium term. We cant force device makers to update their software and commit themselves to a different license.
Busybox on the Telstra T-Box (netgem device) was from October 2004, changes they had made to the source included things such as adding some casts !
The problems isnt with open source coders and the license they choose, a licence cant force a corporation to be nice.
Im a local copyright holder and am following this (There are still things that need to be done)
The impression i have is that Telstra just didnt realise what they where getting into, but since then they have made a genuine effort to fix the problem.
I give Telstra credit for accepting their mistake and trying to fix it, which is lot more than happens in other cases. They certainly could have made it more difficult.
Device manufacturers are the biggest problems, they never talk to developers, they already have our stuff... But if we get a distributor like Telstra on our side they have to respond to them because there are ongoing sales at stake.
QAM's two signals are SEPERATLY modulated and then mixed (you know difference between mixing and modulating i assume), they dont interfere with each other.
QAM effectively gives you two bits vs all other modulation techniques 1
Not really, Quadrature Amplitude Modulation has been around for a long time, its usually done with both signals going in the same direction, doing it with signals going in opposite directions is an improvement, but its not that great a leap.
I wonder why nobody thought of it before, now with al lthe patents they get it might become mainstream in 20 years.
In your previous post you mentioned "properly scrubbed" document.
I was taking issue with your use of the word "properly", it destroys any objective meaning behind your arguments because "properly" is subjective, it reduces your statement to merely an opinion. (now you can call me pedantic if you like)
Understand wikileaks structure and expertise is only usefull if you have reason to question there previous work, if deaths could be blamed on them, im sure the US Gov would have done that by now.
He wanted people to stay home and not protest so he turns the internet off...
Egypt has a large young population which i assume is about as dependent on the net as rest of us. What does he think they going to do when the government turns off the communications and entertainment machines, sit around playing monopoly ?
Turning off the internet to stop people protesting should go down as one the stupidest decisions ever.
TFA doesnt mention the effect it will _voters_, it just talks about what the government will use it, this information is for the people to judge.
Did you not RTFA, or are you just choosing to ignore it?
And tell me how its good for the opposition to let them get away with deceiving voters, can you seriously not see problems with the "core thesis" of TFA ?
Slashdot Mirror
Joe hacker probably doesnt have the lid on his current case anyway, so its not going to change.
And what are the chances a "licensed user" tracking you down and calling the RFI POLICE anyway.
Maybe the RFI police could team up with the FASHION police and form a new department.
Oh, a guarantee from a random internet person, i am beaten then. No possible logic could overcome such powerful language :(
You think the countries in the middle of a democratic revolution will forget that wikileaks releases helped get the ball moving ?
He has been offered citizenship in countries and is respected all over the world because of his ideals, and the fact that that he lives by them.
A lot of the people that he has stood up for wont forget, and there a lots of them.
Well, there are lobbyists, so something is still wrong.
I wonder if people with great memories are bad at actually processing information.
Like, if you can remember everything, why bother ever working stuff out for yourself...
If you cant remember much you have to work stuff out as you go.
Everything has its good and bad points.
To arent allowed to "reproduce" GPL'ed works unless you conform to the license, the license places obligations on distribution.
This has been to court before, companies involved where Best Buy, Samsung and Westinghouse. Walmart would be no different
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/12/14/210207/SFLC-Sues-14-Companies-For-BusyBox-GPL-Violations
Most device makers use ancient versions of software, once they pull it in they rarely touch it.
I encourage people to use the (A)GPLv3, but thats not going to change anything in the short-medium term. We cant force device makers to update their software and commit themselves to a different license.
Busybox on the Telstra T-Box (netgem device) was from October 2004, changes they had made to the source included things such as adding some casts !
The problems isnt with open source coders and the license they choose, a licence cant force a corporation to be nice.
"Would Wal-Mart be in breach if they'd stuck one of these on their shelves?"
Yes, distributing hardware with software in it, is still distributing software.
If Telstra sold re-badged devices with unlicensed copies of windows on it would you expect them to get away with it ?
Interesting you mention iiNet, they have some issues as well.
Im a local copyright holder and am following this (There are still things that need to be done)
The impression i have is that Telstra just didnt realise what they where getting into, but since then they have made a genuine effort to fix the problem.
I give Telstra credit for accepting their mistake and trying to fix it, which is lot more than happens in other cases. They certainly could have made it more difficult.
Device manufacturers are the biggest problems, they never talk to developers, they already have our stuff... But if we get a distributor like Telstra on our side they have to respond to them because there are ongoing sales at stake.
No !
QAM's two signals are SEPERATLY modulated and then mixed (you know difference between mixing and modulating i assume), they dont interfere with each other.
QAM effectively gives you two bits vs all other modulation techniques 1
The first rule of slashvertizing is you DONT talk about slashvertising.
QAM modulates two signals of the same frequency.
The two frequencies are out of phase by 90deg (think sine and cos) and as such are always orthogonal to each other.
Because the two signals are always orthogonal they don't cause interfere with each other, neither does the amplitude modulation of each signal.
I wouldnt call QAM 'merely' anything, its by far the coolest modulation technique IMO.
"Doing this On the same frequency is remarkable."
Not really, Quadrature Amplitude Modulation has been around for a long time, its usually done with both signals going in the same direction, doing it with signals going in opposite directions is an improvement, but its not that great a leap.
I wonder why nobody thought of it before, now with al lthe patents they get it might become mainstream in 20 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAM
If i had to transport Yellow Cake, i would quickly check Yahoo and be satisfied with that answer. NOT !!!
In your previous post you mentioned "properly scrubbed" document.
I was taking issue with your use of the word "properly", it destroys any objective meaning behind your arguments because "properly" is subjective, it reduces your statement to merely an opinion. (now you can call me pedantic if you like)
Understand wikileaks structure and expertise is only usefull if you have reason to question there previous work, if deaths could be blamed on them, im sure the US Gov would have done that by now.
How is a source document inherently better than a properly-scrubbed document?
How is a free person inherently better than a properly manipulated person ?
I wasnt actually being serious. So no, i dont think politicians have supercomputers calculating what makes them popular.
A politician with any chance of success has to be able to instinctively know the right choice.
If a politician cant do impromptu stuff like talk-back radio, live tv, face pesky reporters etc then they have no chance.
Pretty small script yea, but the backend needs a supercomputer to number crunch the "calculate support gained when ..."
Conroy was asked the question by a journalist, it wasnt a press release or something.
Judge for yourself here is the clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Gn4SjNY3U
If you wish to be fair, how about a critical response to the oppositions approach to the Internet.
He wanted people to stay home and not protest so he turns the internet off...
Egypt has a large young population which i assume is about as dependent on the net as rest of us. What does he think they going to do when the government turns off the communications and entertainment machines, sit around playing monopoly ?
Turning off the internet to stop people protesting should go down as one the stupidest decisions ever.
Hmm, well ive never heard of "opt-out" communism where you are free to pursue your greed driven desires.
Socialist governments place a strong emphasis on providing services for their people, yet capitalism isn't banned.
"Communism is forced socialism" seems like an appropriate definition to me.
Why is the word "Socialism" so hard to say for some ?
Calling Open Source communist is false because people arent being forced into it, they have a choice, it is reasonable call it socialist though.
Socialism is all about sharing, society has been "into it" for a long time, its not a dirty word, its not something to be ashamed of.
Communism is when society tries to FORCE its people to share, it doesn't work, its too inefficient.
Or a philosopher accept something is true (or false)
The original is http://www.youtube.com/user/whitelightbringer#p/a/u/0/kYUpkPTcqPY/
TFA doesnt mention the effect it will _voters_, it just talks about what the government will use it, this information is for the people to judge.
Did you not RTFA, or are you just choosing to ignore it?
And tell me how its good for the opposition to let them get away with deceiving voters, can you seriously not see problems with the "core thesis" of TFA ?