The major labels cross-license their catalogs to record clubs, such as Columbia House and BMG Direct. The labels take enormous advances that they do not share with recording artists and pay artists based upon a 50% royalty rate.
Wow...I've been part of the problem all along, thinking "what a good deal" by being able to buy CD's dirt-cheap from the big mail-order houses. This is news to me...I've always been miffed by the way the mail-order houses stamp their name and contact info all over the CD jackets, as if they owned the rights or something.
Maybe those of us who claim to be anti-RIAA need to put money where piehole is and stop buying from Columbia House, BMG, etc...
If I'm not mistaken, both LDP and OSWG support a framework of documentation standards. Guidance and samples are in abundance, if one takes the time to look. So apart from your argument in support of this "meta-project" simply making no sense in light of the facts, give all us whiners another good reaon why duplication of document submission and maintenance efforts will somehow be "useful and appropriate."
I'm talking about what it looks like I'm talking about. If the project doesn't compete with existing documentation projects, that simply means documentation will be hosted in more than one repository -- how will I know which repository is most current, unless I specifically cross-check each doc before downloading? If the multiple repositories will be synced up, why have multiple repositories? Finally, if non-competition means developers deciding which repository to release their docs to, then there will be duplicated efforts through the maintenance of multiple repositories.
Regardless of what the submitter says (and what you quote), the existence of multiple repositories will, in some way, increase the burden of work on multiple repository maintainers, developers and doc writers, and most of all, simply users who don't want to have to search multiple repositories for documentation.
One solution might be a "master" index of all the existing repositories...but I suppose one party will be miffed if they find themselves in the same listing as another party who differ ideologically, in which case we'll have to have multiple "master" indices to assuage all the hard feelings!
Now we have three open-source/free software doc projects: The featured project, LDP, and OSWG. So much wasted effort by so many people who could do God only knows what if they were to combine their talents, rather than taking their ball and running home at ever little perceived slight.
No, this isn't a troll, just an expression of frustration from someone who simply sees the fragmentation of open-source/free software as a Very Bad Thing. Those who promote this type of behavior (including the submitter) are doing a disservice to the open-source/free software community, as well as throwing up unnecessary barriers to those who would like to be part of the action but simply do not have the time or the patience to deal with all the in-fighting.
Warning: Off-topic, so there's no need to waste valuable moderation points. In fact, I'll even remove my +1 bonus so you don't have to...
I'm surprised he posted this fix, kinda points out how far off base/. was a short 3 days ago. Hey, I'm no M$ fan and I kinda expect some opinion on/. posts... but there comes a point when it turns into yellow journalism and becomes childish M$ name calling.
As anybody who has ever corresponded with the/. editors will know,/. is not a news service, which means everything here is opinion, and nothing here can ever be considered to contain even one iota of objective journalistic insight. If you want news, go visit CNN./. isn't a news source, has never claimed to be, and therefore isn't subject to the standards of journalism you imply in your very-much overrated post.
But there are laws that limit the power of these license agreements.
One such legal concept is known as an implied warranty. In some states, vendors cannot legally force consumers to waive their rights to certain implied warranties, regardless of what the legal eagles spout off. There are different kinds of implied warranties, such as the warranty that a particular product will adequately perform as advertised, that a particular product is free from defect, etc.
Many times, enforcement of implied warranties involve legal action, the cost of which generally outweighs the damages sought. It's a consumer law that's not very consumer-friendly.
Extending your thought, one might even be able to classify a smart router as a "computer." In which case, the only thing that will be able to access the service is your router!
This provision seems pretty absurd. It's not like AT&T owns the data being sent through your firewall. Hell, they don't own anything beyond the demarc location on the side of the house/apt. where their cable connects to yours (and the cable modem if you didn't provide your own). Once the data hits my firewall, I simply cannot see how AT&T can exert further control over what I do with it.
OTOH, nothing in the AUP specifically prohibits servers in connection with the service. In fact, this paragraph seems to contradict the whole idea of one computer/one account (bold mine):
(i.) FTP/HTTP Service Setup. Customer acknowledges that when using the Service there are certain applications such as FTP (File Transfer Protocol) server or HTTP (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol) server which may be used by other persons or
entities to allow such other persons or entities to gain access to Customer?s Equipment. Customer is solely responsible for the
security of the Customer Equipment or any other equipment Customer chooses to use in connection with the Service, including
without limitation any data stored on such equipment. Neither AT&T Broadband nor its affiliates shall have any liability
whatsoever for any claims, losses, actions, damages, suits or proceedings resulting from, arising out of or otherwise relating to
the use of such applications by Customer, or the access by others to the Customer Equipment or other equipment of Customer.
I'll take my chances on the conflict between these two AUP provisions.
3) They have been playing fast and loose with the service agreement (that I signed), but instituting an AUP (that I didn't sign)that directly contradicts it.
I haven't seen anything like this. Do you have any references?
This is true. I have two signed agreements: One with AT&T, one with @home. The AT&T agreement does not specifically exclude running servers on the service. In fact, AT&T goes so far as to tell you that you are responsible for any security issues as a result of running servers on the service. Now that @home is out of the picture, I can only assume my (signed) agreement with @home is null and void.
On another note, if you go to the help.broadband.att.com website, one of the questions prominently displayed is "Can I run a server on the network?" It appears AT&T is simply parroting what was in the original @home agreement. So in the regard, I believe the original author is correct: AT&T is playing fast and loose with the AUP.
I've also noticed AT&T doesn't appear to be scanning any ports (@home was keen on scanning port 119 about once an hour). It will be interesting to see what the new "official" AUP says about servers...
If you have one of the General Instrument SBxxxx series of cable modems, you can connect directly to the box with http://192.168.100.1 and see exactly what is going on with the cable synchronization. Even though all the lights were on and steady, I discovered the box was still trying to negotiate an address.
Called the provided AT&T tech-support number on Sunday afternoon hoping to find a quick fix (or at least make them aware there was a problem..) The recorded phone message said they don't provide phone support after 8 pm or on Sunday (arggh!) but would be answering calls again at 8 am Monday.
I was able to reach AT&T level 2 help on the chat facility at http://www.broadband.att.com Sunday evening. Cool thing is that you can see exactly where in the queue you are, and it will count down until you're next in line. All that time spent, only to learn AT&T is being very adamant about not reissuing static IP addresses unless you have an "unsupported version of MacOS." So, does anybody know which versions of MacOS don't support DHCP?
...interestingly enough. Over the years, however, various interests have hijacked much of the spectrum on an "exclusive use" basis. Maybe it's time the FCC returns to its original ideals (through the gentle prodding of the federal courts?)...
151. Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created
"For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the "Federal Communications Commission", which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter."
I do remember, back in the early 80's when I bought one of my first CDs. It was Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon." The clarity was so good you could hear the hiss of the master (analog, presumably) between tracks and at other times. That was obnoxious. I've noticed later releases of the same disk don't have the hiss...
So here's my question: what science-fiction novels have had a particularly noticeable effect on the development of technology?
Some folks here have actually attempted to answer the original question, like the guy who suggested the Navy adopted the use of key tactical stations in the same vein as the Enterprise. Others, however, seem to confuse the mere mention of some "futuristic" concept as "having an effect" on the realization of the concept.
I've read Verne, and I find it hard to believe his ideas (futuristic as they were) had any influence on modern nuclear technology. I think Selanit has taken on a formidable task: How does one prove a cause-effect relationship between sci-fi and reality? I've seen little evidence here I would consider "proof" in this regard.
Maybe Selanit would be so kind as to publish a link of his/her work on/.... I'm sure that would be an interesting, and original, article.
You may be interested in knowing that such a system as you describe (well, except for the hovering part) as been around since the '40s. The Ercoupe doesn't have rudder pedals: On the ground, you steer it like a car (unlike conventional aircraft, in which you use the rudder pedals), and all turns are coordinated since rudder movement is tied to the yoke, which also controls the ailerons. Supposedly, it's nearly impossible to get the Ercoupe into a spin.
Timmy, you're in way over your head on this one. Navigation is but a small part of flying. With GPS, one can travel directly from point A to point B. But no amount of navigational assistance will help those pilots who die because they run out of fuel. Or who die because they buzz Mom and Dad's farm, low and slow, suddenly find themselves in a stall they'll never recover from. Or who die because they think they can scud-run below the cloud deck, and then suddenly find themselves in the soup, all visual cues gone. You see, Timmy, there's much, much more to flying than simply cranking up the hangar queen every month, taking to the air, and letting a computer fly for you.
One of the reasons why I gave up flying and sold my plane was because of so many pilots who simply did not know how to look out the window. Or how to properly enter the airport traffic pattern. So many morons in the air, and let me tell you from both a pilot perspective and an air traffic control perspective (yes, I've done both), too many pilots depend on their computer gadgets to get from point A to point B.
Here's some perspective: Check out the NTSB aircraft accident site. Follow the links for monthly synopses. If you read enough of the accident reports (I've read many of them), you'll discover navigation is the least of the problems facing pilots today. Most pilots die for one of two reasons: They run out of fuel, or they fly into weather they aren't equipped or trained to handle.
NASA has been at the forefront of the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS), and for that I commend them. But you're sadly mistaken, Timmy, if you believe we'll see general aviation become as simple and safe as "driving your car," as you put it. There are way too many other obstacles GA pilots face than how to get from Madison to Detroit. You do your readers a disservice by pretending navigation is the biggest problem us pilots face in the world.
I don't know about you, Timmy, but I think I'd much rather have a parachute recovery system for my small plane than a new nav system: The parachute will be far more useful to me when I'm involved in a midair collision with a pilot who's busy starting at his new cockpit computer rather than looking out the cockpit window.
I can vouch for GANDI.net. I've been a customer for little over two years. Everything -- I mean everything -- is done via e-mail and browser. Which means the only authentication required of you is your password. In fact, they discourage phone calls, which is fine by me, as they have been most responsive to e-mail on the few occasions I've had to ask a question.
Their TOC is reasonable as well: You own the domain, plain and simple, until you let the registration lapse.
The amateur radio community has been transmitting data over wireless for many years now, over ranges that span the globe, not just next door. However, the FCC places some pretty stringent restrictions on what you can transmit in the US on amateur radio frequencies:
No music.
No encrypted communications.
Nothing commercial.
So, for those looking to do one or more of the above, this probably isn't the route to go. Also, remember Shannon's law -- the smaller the bandwidth, the less the data-carrying capacity of the data channel. So for those frequencies capable of spanning long distances (through skip, moonbounce, or whatever), the data capacity won't come close to what can be had with an 802.11b network.
Still, as strictly a communications medium, data over amateur radio frequencies is more than sufficient. What needs to be done is to discover methods to increase capacity on the available bandwiths by (1) increasing S/N ratios and (2) devising modulation schemes which transmit more than 0 or 1 per frequency cycle. Some of these schemes are very popular, but there's still a lot of work to be done, and a lot of improvements to be made.
Many comments here suggest wireless digital communications over many miles at low cost simply doesn't exist. It does exist, but with restriction. If you can live within the restrictions (and a little imagination might even provide solutions to work around those restrictions), then the low-cost solution is already here. There's no need to simply talk about it as if it doesn't exist.
Maybe so...the West Texas town of Throckmorton laid 15 miles of water line in 15 days, mostly through volunteer labor. Why not some fiber optics? Seems like all you'd need is a smaller ditch.
And all the free software available (GNU utils, Perl code, Python code, MySQL, etc.) helps keep taxpayer costs way down. My God, just imagine if the gov't contributed just a fraction of the cost savings over equivalent commercial software to the open-source vendors! Not only would the taxpayers still save money, but all the free software coders out there would actually have even more incentive to churn out good stuff.
Is anybody aware of the gov't actually paying for this free stuff as an incentive for continued development?
Not all AT&T areas block incoming ports. Also, take a close look at your AT&T agreement (it's separate from the @Home agreement). The one I have does not explicitly exclude servers associated with the service, as the @Home TOS does. The question I have is, if @Home is no longer, then can I run servers on my system based on the AT&T TOS?
One interesting aspect of all this is that if you live in an area where incoming ports are blocked by AT&T, and your AT&T TOS doesn't explicitly prohibit personal servers, then how can AT&T justify blocking these ports?
Your clarification is only partially correct. Under some very limited conditions, superluminal (faster-than-light) speeds are possible. I remember reading about this in The Dancing Wu Li Masters (very good overview of relativity for the non-physics types out there). A quick search for "superluminal" in your favorite search engine will generate links such as this Scientific American article about the very limited conditions necessary for superluminal speeds.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow...I've been part of the problem all along, thinking "what a good deal" by being able to buy CD's dirt-cheap from the big mail-order houses. This is news to me...I've always been miffed by the way the mail-order houses stamp their name and contact info all over the CD jackets, as if they owned the rights or something.
Maybe those of us who claim to be anti-RIAA need to put money where piehole is and stop buying from Columbia House, BMG, etc...
Yeah, but at least I don't have to lie about who I am with Yahoo (and I still see their ads).
Fight back...read the article here, without the blah blah blah part.
If I'm not mistaken, both LDP and OSWG support a framework of documentation standards. Guidance and samples are in abundance, if one takes the time to look. So apart from your argument in support of this "meta-project" simply making no sense in light of the facts, give all us whiners another good reaon why duplication of document submission and maintenance efforts will somehow be "useful and appropriate."
Regardless of what the submitter says (and what you quote), the existence of multiple repositories will, in some way, increase the burden of work on multiple repository maintainers, developers and doc writers, and most of all, simply users who don't want to have to search multiple repositories for documentation.
One solution might be a "master" index of all the existing repositories...but I suppose one party will be miffed if they find themselves in the same listing as another party who differ ideologically, in which case we'll have to have multiple "master" indices to assuage all the hard feelings!
No, this isn't a troll, just an expression of frustration from someone who simply sees the fragmentation of open-source/free software as a Very Bad Thing. Those who promote this type of behavior (including the submitter) are doing a disservice to the open-source/free software community, as well as throwing up unnecessary barriers to those who would like to be part of the action but simply do not have the time or the patience to deal with all the in-fighting.
As anybody who has ever corresponded with the
One such legal concept is known as an implied warranty. In some states, vendors cannot legally force consumers to waive their rights to certain implied warranties, regardless of what the legal eagles spout off. There are different kinds of implied warranties, such as the warranty that a particular product will adequately perform as advertised, that a particular product is free from defect, etc.
Many times, enforcement of implied warranties involve legal action, the cost of which generally outweighs the damages sought. It's a consumer law that's not very consumer-friendly.
Extending your thought, one might even be able to classify a smart router as a "computer." In which case, the only thing that will be able to access the service is your router!
This provision seems pretty absurd. It's not like AT&T owns the data being sent through your firewall. Hell, they don't own anything beyond the demarc location on the side of the house/apt. where their cable connects to yours (and the cable modem if you didn't provide your own). Once the data hits my firewall, I simply cannot see how AT&T can exert further control over what I do with it.
I'd really like to seem them try to enforce this.
I'll take my chances on the conflict between these two AUP provisions.
This is true. I have two signed agreements: One with AT&T, one with @home. The AT&T agreement does not specifically exclude running servers on the service. In fact, AT&T goes so far as to tell you that you are responsible for any security issues as a result of running servers on the service. Now that @home is out of the picture, I can only assume my (signed) agreement with @home is null and void.
On another note, if you go to the help.broadband.att.com website, one of the questions prominently displayed is "Can I run a server on the network?" It appears AT&T is simply parroting what was in the original @home agreement. So in the regard, I believe the original author is correct: AT&T is playing fast and loose with the AUP.
I've also noticed AT&T doesn't appear to be scanning any ports (@home was keen on scanning port 119 about once an hour). It will be interesting to see what the new "official" AUP says about servers...
If you have one of the General Instrument SBxxxx series of cable modems, you can connect directly to the box with http://192.168.100.1 and see exactly what is going on with the cable synchronization. Even though all the lights were on and steady, I discovered the box was still trying to negotiate an address.
I was able to reach AT&T level 2 help on the chat facility at http://www.broadband.att.com Sunday evening. Cool thing is that you can see exactly where in the queue you are, and it will count down until you're next in line. All that time spent, only to learn AT&T is being very adamant about not reissuing static IP addresses unless you have an "unsupported version of MacOS." So, does anybody know which versions of MacOS don't support DHCP?
I do remember, back in the early 80's when I bought one of my first CDs. It was Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon." The clarity was so good you could hear the hiss of the master (analog, presumably) between tracks and at other times. That was obnoxious. I've noticed later releases of the same disk don't have the hiss...
Some folks here have actually attempted to answer the original question, like the guy who suggested the Navy adopted the use of key tactical stations in the same vein as the Enterprise. Others, however, seem to confuse the mere mention of some "futuristic" concept as "having an effect" on the realization of the concept.
I've read Verne, and I find it hard to believe his ideas (futuristic as they were) had any influence on modern nuclear technology. I think Selanit has taken on a formidable task: How does one prove a cause-effect relationship between sci-fi and reality? I've seen little evidence here I would consider "proof" in this regard.
Maybe Selanit would be so kind as to publish a link of his/her work on
You may be interested in knowing that such a system as you describe (well, except for the hovering part) as been around since the '40s. The Ercoupe doesn't have rudder pedals: On the ground, you steer it like a car (unlike conventional aircraft, in which you use the rudder pedals), and all turns are coordinated since rudder movement is tied to the yoke, which also controls the ailerons. Supposedly, it's nearly impossible to get the Ercoupe into a spin.
One of the reasons why I gave up flying and sold my plane was because of so many pilots who simply did not know how to look out the window. Or how to properly enter the airport traffic pattern. So many morons in the air, and let me tell you from both a pilot perspective and an air traffic control perspective (yes, I've done both), too many pilots depend on their computer gadgets to get from point A to point B.
Here's some perspective: Check out the NTSB aircraft accident site. Follow the links for monthly synopses. If you read enough of the accident reports (I've read many of them), you'll discover navigation is the least of the problems facing pilots today. Most pilots die for one of two reasons: They run out of fuel, or they fly into weather they aren't equipped or trained to handle.
NASA has been at the forefront of the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS), and for that I commend them. But you're sadly mistaken, Timmy, if you believe we'll see general aviation become as simple and safe as "driving your car," as you put it. There are way too many other obstacles GA pilots face than how to get from Madison to Detroit. You do your readers a disservice by pretending navigation is the biggest problem us pilots face in the world.
I don't know about you, Timmy, but I think I'd much rather have a parachute recovery system for my small plane than a new nav system: The parachute will be far more useful to me when I'm involved in a midair collision with a pilot who's busy starting at his new cockpit computer rather than looking out the cockpit window.
Their TOC is reasonable as well: You own the domain, plain and simple, until you let the registration lapse.
So, for those looking to do one or more of the above, this probably isn't the route to go. Also, remember Shannon's law -- the smaller the bandwidth, the less the data-carrying capacity of the data channel. So for those frequencies capable of spanning long distances (through skip, moonbounce, or whatever), the data capacity won't come close to what can be had with an 802.11b network.
Still, as strictly a communications medium, data over amateur radio frequencies is more than sufficient. What needs to be done is to discover methods to increase capacity on the available bandwiths by (1) increasing S/N ratios and (2) devising modulation schemes which transmit more than 0 or 1 per frequency cycle. Some of these schemes are very popular, but there's still a lot of work to be done, and a lot of improvements to be made.
Many comments here suggest wireless digital communications over many miles at low cost simply doesn't exist. It does exist, but with restriction. If you can live within the restrictions (and a little imagination might even provide solutions to work around those restrictions), then the low-cost solution is already here. There's no need to simply talk about it as if it doesn't exist.
Maybe so...the West Texas town of Throckmorton laid 15 miles of water line in 15 days, mostly through volunteer labor. Why not some fiber optics? Seems like all you'd need is a smaller ditch.
And all the free software available (GNU utils, Perl code, Python code, MySQL, etc.) helps keep taxpayer costs way down.
My God, just imagine if the gov't contributed just a fraction of the cost savings over equivalent commercial software to the open-source vendors! Not only would the taxpayers still save money, but all the free software coders out there would actually have even more incentive to churn out good stuff.
Is anybody aware of the gov't actually paying for this free stuff as an incentive for continued development?
I can attest for sure, as a cartographer, that ALL map companies do in fact still produce inaccuracies, and quite intentionally.
And all this time I thought the Rand McNally street atlas of Dallas was just a piece of shit. Now I learn they do this on purpose!
I couldn't find my way to my own house skunk drunk with the Rand McNally map.
Not all AT&T areas block incoming ports. Also, take a close look at your AT&T agreement (it's separate from the @Home agreement). The one I have does not explicitly exclude servers associated with the service, as the @Home TOS does. The question I have is, if @Home is no longer, then can I run servers on my system based on the AT&T TOS?
One interesting aspect of all this is that if you live in an area where incoming ports are blocked by AT&T, and your AT&T TOS doesn't explicitly prohibit personal servers, then how can AT&T justify blocking these ports?
Your clarification is only partially correct. Under some very limited conditions, superluminal (faster-than-light) speeds are possible. I remember reading about this in The Dancing Wu Li Masters (very good overview of relativity for the non-physics types out there). A quick search for "superluminal" in your favorite search engine will generate links such as this Scientific American article about the very limited conditions necessary for superluminal speeds.