|
AI chatbots are sooo last hour dude. Everyone is building chatbot-exam-cheating-detection-circumvention bots now.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
The mobile phone turns 50! /a>[^]
I had a company Nokia 1011 in the early 90's - I was on call for a custard* - but the MD had a Dynatak. At least mine fitted in a suit / motorcycle jacket pocket! And I never went back - I've had smartphones since the first days of the HP iPaq phone (which predated the iPhony by several years but never caught on with the mass market).
Anyone else go back further?
* A cross between a customer and a b*st*rd.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
It was in 1991 for me. I remember vividly getting the company's phone (I was sharing it with another guy) on a wharf in Barcelona. I called my wife and said "can you imagine I'm calling form a place in the middle of nowhere?". The phone in question was an Ericsson that could have been also used for ironing: all electronics and battery were in a separate handheld unit and weighted something like 2 pounds.
A year latter got myself a "slick" Nokia that could indeed fit in my pocket.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: never caught on with the mass market
...because they were slow and clunky. 
OriginalGriff wrote: Anyone else go back further?
Not for my own use but as a young-ish IT guy (at the time) I was forced to setup and migrate data from various Sharp PDAs in the late 80's and early 90's for a certain forward thinking but technically inept corporate exec. They probably made the iPAQ look like magic.
|
|
|
|
|
Not for the time, they were OK - I suspect it was more the usual HP lack of marketing and promotion.
Back then they pretty much didn't have a marketing budget because they were acquiring other companies like crazy with little idea what the heck to do with them ... and that soaked up cash.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Not for the time, they were OK
They were too slow and clunky for their use. Hardware and software of the day wasn't ready to deliver the kind of experience needed for success on that kind of device.
Sorry but no amount of marketing could have made the iPAQ a success.
|
|
|
|
|
In 1981, the automated cellular NMT network (Nordic Mobile Telephone) replaced the old operator-assisted mobile phone network. It was an immense success in the Nordic countries, and prevailed long after the introduction of GSM, much because 450 MHz NMT had much greater coverage than 900 MHz GSM.
In the US, I guess this has minor or no importance, though...
|
|
|
|
|
Mid '91 I was the first in the company to get a Motorola MicroTAC II flip. All the goodies too. 3 different sized batteries, car kit....
The salesmen who had been lugging round "bricks" (DynaTAC) were sooo jealous that a techo got a nicer phone. 
Battery life was not a great thing in those NiCd days. There were a few hours-long international conference calls where I had to make a quick battery swap and rejoin the call.
It replaced a pager, which was nice. The nature of the business was such that most of the support calls from ops were between 1am and 4am. I could now respond to the trivial ones without getting out of bed. And if I had to get out of bed, I could talk to them while the landline was tied up with the dial-up modem.
Replaced by some candybar Nokia I don't remember when AMPS was phased out for CDMA.
And I am older than the (bipolar) transistor.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
I guess their definition of a mobile phone is "Handheld".
Ericsson designed their first fully automated mobile phone system for vehicles in 1956, it weighed a whopping 40 kg though.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: fully automated mobile phone system for vehicles in 1956
The ones before that were 'manual'???
|
|
|
|
|
There were mobile phone systems before that where you had to order a call from the exchange.
The border between a mobile phone system and a glorified radio is a bit fuzzy, but the Ericsson MTA had a rotary dial and automatic connection to the normal telephone system.
|
|
|
|
|
Well that is interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
All I had was a pager and the nearest phone box. I could not afford a mobile phone.
Mobile phones are for making and receiving calls and texts. Beyond that, the screen size is way too small for me. 
ed
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Anyone else go back further?
Not for cellphone, no...
But in 1986 I was issued with a company (EDS) pager for overnight support. It seemed miraculous at the time - receiving instant messages whereever I was, with a little (16 character?) display. There were three of us on the project supporting a credit card processing application, with one each night on support and one on "backup" support. So that was four nights a week we were "on duty" with a pager. EDS being what it was, there was a strict "no drinking" rule whilst on duty; however the team often met socially after work. One night my colleague's pager went off, and it got "accidentally" dropped in his pint. When I got home about an hour later, mine (as backup) also went off. Fortunately the fix for the production issue was trivial and ops were able to resolve it without me dialling in (we also had a portable teletype unit and modem with acoustic coupler!), which by then was just as well... 
|
|
|
|
|
Both actually, if you're interested in MS products.
The noise about Bluetooth had me thinking too ... but in terms of Windows.
My Google of "MSDN c# bluetooth file transfer" yielded virtually nothing worthwhile in the first x pages (note the use of MSDN which tends to (usually) surface better results).
The same query in Bing then yielded at #2: "Bluetooth RFCOMM"
Quote: This article provides an overview of Bluetooth RFCOMM in Universal Windows Platform (UWP) apps, along with example code on how to send or receive a file.
... "exactly" what I was looking for but was afraid to ask.
Subsequently querying Google on "uwp bluetooth rfcomm" yielded a swath of useful results.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
ChatGPT
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
There is also DuckDuckGo.com[^]
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
... if you use it in a Web Backend implementation?
Does the front end then needs to have to display all these packages anywhere?
Or is it enough to have a license text file on the server? 
|
|
|
|
|
First of course read it and understand it.
And there is no such thing as "MIT License" legally. You need to get the text of the exact license. I suggest also that you do the following for each library
1. Document where you got the library - the url
2. Document the date when you got it.
3. Document, in text, where you pulled the license from.
4. Copy that license. Definitely do not rely on the original url (#1) to find the license in the future.
5. Do NOT automate pulling new versions. They can change the license anytime they want.
If you are concerned about your understanding (not whoever posts here) then you should hire a lawyer with experience in Software.
0x01AA wrote: Does the front end then needs to have to display all these packages anywhere?
I looked at the following and then read what it says about X11 (a version). That is limited to the following
1. That version
2. That what is posted there is correct.
3. My understanding.
MIT License - Wikipedia[^]
Based on that it says nothing at all about maintaining the copyright (other licenses do that) in any form.
Rather it tells you that you cannot use the copyright notice at all. So the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. It should not be in the web pages and it should not be in the backend either.
This terminology is to insure that you (or someone else) cannot attempt to copyright the original library code yourself and thus keep others from using it.
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, thank you very much for your answer.
A lot of material which I have to process first.
For the wiki: No, sorry, I would never trust a wiki publication regarding to legal stuff.
Thanks again.
[Edit]
An example which bothers me:
MIT License
Copyright (c) 2020 'by xyz'
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.
modified 3-Apr-23 13:28pm.
|
|
|
|
|
0x01AA wrote: An example which bothers me:
However that is only part of the license...so if you do the following to the library itself...
without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software
Then that software (the code in the library itself) and only that software...
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
It has nothing to do with the rest of your application. Not the code and not what your code displays.
|
|
|
|
|
Your understanding is wrong.
"You cannot use the copyright notice", as you frame it, basically means you can't copy-paste the copyright notice of someone else, with someone else's name on it, for your own work. You need your own license for your own work, and that license can also be MIT-X11 if you choose so.
That being said, you need to keep the original work and the original license together.
If you use a library under MIT-X11 on the backend, you need to provide the license on the backend as well.
|
|
|
|
|
MIT-X11 is a permissive license.
Simplified, you keep the original code as-is, and you make sure to keep the license text and the code together.
If you've used the code in a project with a package manager, the license text is included automatically.
If you've downloaded the code from GitHub, just don't delete the license.
If the code is deployed on the backend, you need the license somewhere on the backend as well.
Additionally:
If you modify the original work, you cannot slap a new license on the entire thing and say it's your work now.
If you build something with it or change something, you can license your stuff however you want.
If something explodes, you can't sue the license holder of the original work for damages.
Pretty much all permissive licenses are like this, with the exception that some licenses require you to also communicate bugfixes and new features inside the original work to the original author. MIT-X11 does not requires this, but L-GPTL does, for example.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
