Well, two things to think about. Cells use frequencies other than 2.4GHz and 5.1GHz for communications. But I don't believe that wireless communication devices are really a major threat to aircraft - they didn't take my phone away at the TSA checkpoint. If I was a malicious passenger, and wanted to take down an airline, do you think they'd let me through the gate with a device that will disrupt the plane's instrumentation if it's switched on? I've flown all over the place, and casually forgotten to turn my cell off. Just didn't occur to me. Guess what? I made it to the destination, and so did the other 200 people on the flight. I wonder how often that happens.
I realise all that, and I agree with you. I'm sure people leave their phones on all the time, and I have never heard of that causing problems, and like you said, if cell phones really posed a demonstrable risk they would not be so casual about asking for them to be turned off.
I'm just curious about what Qantas' rationalization of the apparent contradiction will be, and whether we will now also be allowed to use our phones on-board (although I have no idea if you can from that height. What's the maximum line-of-sight range of a GSM mast?)
Didn't one airline already offer this for a short while, but they abandoned it because they didn't want terrorists to be able to communicate with the ground, or colleagues on other planes?
Also, why is Wi-Fi suddenly safe while we're not allowed to use cell phones on board?
I hope there's also some contention about what will happen when those closer-together planes are left without GPS due to a war in the Gulf or some technical glitch,...
What's their collective over-all general take on this?
Something about "herding cats" springs to mind when contemplating trying the get a "collective over-all general take" from all musicians everywhere...;-)
Me: "I have this phone I want to add to my plan"
Sprint: "Did the store activate it?"
<snip>
Was this a GSM phone? With GSM there is no "activating" phones, you just stick your SIM card in the phone and you're done. The phone could be SIM-locked so that it doesn't work with your carrier (which is the case with the iPhone, which only works with AT&T), but not the other way around (unless they're whitelisting IMEI numbers, which seems very unlikely and which I have never heard of).
You are allowed to unlock your cell phone no matter what Apple or AT&T think about it.
What does unlocking a phone have to do with circumventing copyright protection? Surely the DMCA does not apply and it would be legal whether or not the DMCA had exemptions covering it, as long as you're not interfering with the built-in copy restriction measures of the phone?
It would be instant chaos. Three out of four people...or more, depending on what part of the world you're from. Suddenly, the foundation and moral code they've all built their life on - is provably false. And therefore...gone. They would go nuts.
Of course not. When has that ever happened when some explanation or other from the bible was disproved by science? They would just instantly adjust their stories. Some people would react by saying aliens don't really exist and it's all just a government-perpetrated hoax. But most would just reinterpret the bible to include the aliens somehow. At most they would concede that the creation story may not be literally true, but most religious people don't believe that anyway.
The thing is, nothing can shake the core beliefs of a true believer, because their belief is not based on evidence, but because they want to believe (which is what "having faith" means)! They don't listen to evidence, or they twist it to support their beliefs, because admitting to themselves that the way they lived their entire lives was based on a lie is just too hard. They will somehow incorporate the aliens into their belief system just like they have incorporated a million other little pieces of evidence which contradict their beliefs and life will go on as normal...
I am required to have a computer to use the phone?
Of course not. Duh. Like any other smartphone it comes with software which you can install on your computer to do various things like synchronize it with your calendar and addressbook, etc. This software doesn't run on XP 64-bit (due to the device drivers needed to communicate with the iPhone not being certified for XP 64). But the phone works fine on its own, without installing any software anywhere. Who modded this "insightful"?
/me removes foot from mouth
Oops, seems I was wrong. You need iTunes to activate the phone. Mea culpa, and apologies for the condescending tone...
I agree that it's (at the very least) silly to require a PC to be able to use a cell phone. They could have easily made it so that the activation process is done on the phone itself, or offered some way of activating it by phone or something.
I am required to have a computer to use the phone?
Of course not. Duh. Like any other smartphone it comes with software which you can install on your computer to do various things like synchronize it with your calendar and addressbook, etc. This software doesn't run on XP 64-bit (due to the device drivers needed to communicate with the iPhone not being certified for XP 64). But the phone works fine on its own, without installing any software anywhere. Who modded this "insightful"?
Seriously, what the fuck is everybody's problem with Michael Moore? I've seen his movies and read his books, and what I see is lots of indisputable facts and clear, reasoned arguments. You may disagree with the propagandistic style of his movies or Moore's antagonistic interview style, but aren't we here clever enough to see past that and not let it distract us from the underlying message?
Why does everybody attack the man instead of respond to the arguments? I expect better from the/. crowd. Maybe that just shows how naive I am...
Beyond all reasonable doubt" does not require that you have no doubts, only that such doubts as you have are beyond what may be considered reasonable.
Exactly. It just so happens that my personal standard of evidence is very high, so I would already consider a small amount of doubt unreasonable, especially given the dire consequences to an innocent person if I'm wrong.
To me, "reasonableness" in a legalistic sense would mean "if you had N people of average or above average intelligence, from a uniformly random cross-section of the population, who were honest to themselves and others and who held no preconceived notions on the subject, the majority would reach a similar or the same conclusion".
I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, that doesn't sound like the composition of the average jury to me...
If I was a juror I would vote "not guilty" on this evidence. I'm a big believer in "proven beyond all reasonable doubt."
Quite, but I have serious problems trusting a selection of my "peers" to be quite so impartial and clear thinking.
Actually I agree. By "if I was a juror" it didn't mean to imply that I approve of the jury system... I am actually strongly against it. In my own country professional (as opposed to elected or appointed) judges determine guilt and punishment, and while we have our share of miscarriages of justice on the whole I think it's a much better system.
I must say, the article describes some very damning evidence:
"Police search the CRX and find that the front passenger seat has recently been removed. The floor is soaked, as if it had been washed. There are heavy-duty garbage bags, cloth towels, masking tape, and two books: Masterpieces of Murder and Homicide. Police also find another drop of blood and match it to Nina."
This is after the police have (surreptitiously) followed Hans to the car and observed him moving it to a different location. What other explanation could there be for this than that Hans did indeed murder Nina, especially since (as far as I can tell from the article) Hans has offered no other explanation for the state of the car?
Some of the rest of his interview sounds pretty creepy and paranoid too. For example, Hans says: "Male geeks, such as myself, are one of America's most hated cultural minorities," he writes. "Unlike racial hatred, it is considered socially acceptable to indulge in such hatred." This is obviously completely ridiculous. He then proceeds to use this as an excuse for a lot of strange behavior, such as wanting to "teach the culture of manhood to little boys, with all of its inherent opposition to wallowing in wimpiness" (talking about playing hours and hours of Battlefield Vietnam with his six year old son).
None of that is evidence of murder of course, but it does make Hans seem unstable and paranoid and his explanations suspect. All in all it seems likely to me that Hans did indeed murder Nina. Of course in theory I suppose it's possible that he's the victim of some extremely elaborate setup (which I fully expect many people who watch too much CSI to claim), but in reality I think that's an very unlikely option.
Having said that, this is just what I currently personally believe. If I was a juror I would vote "not guilty" on this evidence. I'm a big believer in "proven beyond all reasonable doubt." As long as there isn't even any evidence that Nina is actually dead, let alone hard evidence that Hans did it, I would have give him the benefit of the doubt, even though personally I find it more likely that he did it than not. To let off a murderer would be very bad, but in my opinion it would be much worse to wrongly convict an innocent man.
Even if the container were waterproof the car would still rust if the humidity wasn't controlled.
There would be some rusting as the water in the air at the moment the bunker was sealed gets bound up in rust, but if there was no supply of new water in the air (which is what waterproof means, obviously) at some point an equilibrium would be reached and the rusting would stop. I'd be willing to bet that there would only be very little rust, since air doesn't support much vapourised water at all.
Just recognizing and blurring faces won't be enough. Many people are in these photos quite close up and presumable their friends and relatives would still be able to recognize them even if their face is blurred. Just think of the infamous girl with her thong showing getting something out of her car, for instance, I'm sure she's easily recognizable to her friends and family, from her body shape, clothes, her car, etc., and her face isn't even showing to begin with.
When an OSS maintainer gives up, you can still maintain the software precisely because you have the source so that there are ways of maintaining the software.
Actually no.
I can not maintain the code.
Even if I had the skills, I don't have the time. And I can't afford to pay someone who can. So no - I can NOT maintain the code if it is intimately tied to a single developer. To suggest that I can is as farcical as suggesting that OSS is more secure because many eyes are critiquing the code - when in actual practice very few eyes are involved in most of the code on sourceforge etc.
The "you" in the orginal post was obviously metaphorical. You personally might not be able to maintain the code, but someone else will be, or can afford to hire someone to maintain the code. None of that would be possible if the code was closed, is what the point of the original poster was.
GameStop now takes your $100, puts it in the bank, gets mad interest off of your cash and another 400,000 reservations, and you're left with nothing. Instead of just having customers pay when the product is physically here.... Sorry, but I want a product when I put cash down.
In the Netherlands you can usually (pre-)order on "rembours", meaning that you pay the postman when the package arrives. Is this possible in the US? You usually pay a small fee, but the upside is that you get to keep the interest instead of the store, and the store has an incentive to get you your product early.
Unfortunately for your joke, Flanders is the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Unless the joke is so deep that it actually imitates Homer getting things wrong as usual, then it's very good.:-)
I highly doubt that European broadcasters are not encrypting their premium channels (and likely non-broadcast channels as well). What are you able to watch on your card? Do you have another device feeding it?
They are encrypting them (in fact in the Netherlands the cable providers have the annoying habit of encrypting almost everything, including the free channels), but a PC with the right equipment can decrypt them just like a set-top box can. I have a DVB-C PCI card with a separate CI card which connects to it, an Alphacrypt CAM that goes in the CI card, and the smartcard that I got from my cable provider goes in the CAM. Note that this is all perfectly legal off-the-shelf hardware. It decrypts all the encrypted channels that are included in my package (including the HD ones, and the MPEG4 ones).
I suppose you would know better then me, but it really makes me extra depressed to think that just the US, Canada, and Mexico consumers are in this boat (or maybe that gives me hope.. I'm not sure).
It does look like that's the current situation. I know of no plans to introduce schemes that would stop PC's from being able to receive encrypted HD content. The cable providers are just now rolling out digital PVR's and HD set-top boxes, with which my setup is compatible, so they're not going to change the way they work anytime soon.
MythTV has HDTV support for broadcast and Cable HD, but lacks a means of decrypting these streams.
There seems to be a lot of this going around. It must be an American thing, perhaps something to do with ATSC, the DMCA, the FCC or some other three or four letter word? Like I said in another post, I can watch encrypted HDTV channels fine with my DVB-C PCI card (specifically, a Technotrend Budget C-1500). But I think DVB is the European standard.
Slashdot Mirror
I realise all that, and I agree with you. I'm sure people leave their phones on all the time, and I have never heard of that causing problems, and like you said, if cell phones really posed a demonstrable risk they would not be so casual about asking for them to be turned off.
I'm just curious about what Qantas' rationalization of the apparent contradiction will be, and whether we will now also be allowed to use our phones on-board (although I have no idea if you can from that height. What's the maximum line-of-sight range of a GSM mast?)
This is great news. But:
Didn't one airline already offer this for a short while, but they abandoned it because they didn't want terrorists to be able to communicate with the ground, or colleagues on other planes?
Also, why is Wi-Fi suddenly safe while we're not allowed to use cell phones on board?
What does unlocking a phone have to do with circumventing copyright protection? Surely the DMCA does not apply and it would be legal whether or not the DMCA had exemptions covering it, as long as you're not interfering with the built-in copy restriction measures of the phone?
Of course not. When has that ever happened when some explanation or other from the bible was disproved by science? They would just instantly adjust their stories. Some people would react by saying aliens don't really exist and it's all just a government-perpetrated hoax. But most would just reinterpret the bible to include the aliens somehow. At most they would concede that the creation story may not be literally true, but most religious people don't believe that anyway.
The thing is, nothing can shake the core beliefs of a true believer, because their belief is not based on evidence, but because they want to believe (which is what "having faith" means)! They don't listen to evidence, or they twist it to support their beliefs, because admitting to themselves that the way they lived their entire lives was based on a lie is just too hard. They will somehow incorporate the aliens into their belief system just like they have incorporated a million other little pieces of evidence which contradict their beliefs and life will go on as normal...
Oops, seems I was wrong. You need iTunes to activate the phone. Mea culpa, and apologies for the condescending tone...
I agree that it's (at the very least) silly to require a PC to be able to use a cell phone. They could have easily made it so that the activation process is done on the phone itself, or offered some way of activating it by phone or something.
Seriously, what the fuck is everybody's problem with Michael Moore? I've seen his movies and read his books, and what I see is lots of indisputable facts and clear, reasoned arguments. You may disagree with the propagandistic style of his movies or Moore's antagonistic interview style, but aren't we here clever enough to see past that and not let it distract us from the underlying message?
/. crowd. Maybe that just shows how naive I am...
Why does everybody attack the man instead of respond to the arguments? I expect better from the
Exactly. It just so happens that my personal standard of evidence is very high, so I would already consider a small amount of doubt unreasonable, especially given the dire consequences to an innocent person if I'm wrong.
I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, that doesn't sound like the composition of the average jury to me...Actually I agree. By "if I was a juror" it didn't mean to imply that I approve of the jury system... I am actually strongly against it. In my own country professional (as opposed to elected or appointed) judges determine guilt and punishment, and while we have our share of miscarriages of justice on the whole I think it's a much better system.
I must say, the article describes some very damning evidence: "Police search the CRX and find that the front passenger seat has recently been removed. The floor is soaked, as if it had been washed. There are heavy-duty garbage bags, cloth towels, masking tape, and two books: Masterpieces of Murder and Homicide. Police also find another drop of blood and match it to Nina." This is after the police have (surreptitiously) followed Hans to the car and observed him moving it to a different location. What other explanation could there be for this than that Hans did indeed murder Nina, especially since (as far as I can tell from the article) Hans has offered no other explanation for the state of the car? Some of the rest of his interview sounds pretty creepy and paranoid too. For example, Hans says: "Male geeks, such as myself, are one of America's most hated cultural minorities," he writes. "Unlike racial hatred, it is considered socially acceptable to indulge in such hatred." This is obviously completely ridiculous. He then proceeds to use this as an excuse for a lot of strange behavior, such as wanting to "teach the culture of manhood to little boys, with all of its inherent opposition to wallowing in wimpiness" (talking about playing hours and hours of Battlefield Vietnam with his six year old son). None of that is evidence of murder of course, but it does make Hans seem unstable and paranoid and his explanations suspect. All in all it seems likely to me that Hans did indeed murder Nina. Of course in theory I suppose it's possible that he's the victim of some extremely elaborate setup (which I fully expect many people who watch too much CSI to claim), but in reality I think that's an very unlikely option. Having said that, this is just what I currently personally believe. If I was a juror I would vote "not guilty" on this evidence. I'm a big believer in "proven beyond all reasonable doubt." As long as there isn't even any evidence that Nina is actually dead, let alone hard evidence that Hans did it, I would have give him the benefit of the doubt, even though personally I find it more likely that he did it than not. To let off a murderer would be very bad, but in my opinion it would be much worse to wrongly convict an innocent man.
There would be some rusting as the water in the air at the moment the bunker was sealed gets bound up in rust, but if there was no supply of new water in the air (which is what waterproof means, obviously) at some point an equilibrium would be reached and the rusting would stop. I'd be willing to bet that there would only be very little rust, since air doesn't support much vapourised water at all.
Just recognizing and blurring faces won't be enough. Many people are in these photos quite close up and presumable their friends and relatives would still be able to recognize them even if their face is blurred. Just think of the infamous girl with her thong showing getting something out of her car, for instance, I'm sure she's easily recognizable to her friends and family, from her body shape, clothes, her car, etc., and her face isn't even showing to begin with.
The "you" in the orginal post was obviously metaphorical. You personally might not be able to maintain the code, but someone else will be, or can afford to hire someone to maintain the code. None of that would be possible if the code was closed, is what the point of the original poster was.
GameStop now takes your $100, puts it in the bank, gets mad interest off of your cash and another 400,000 reservations, and you're left with nothing. Instead of just having customers pay when the product is physically here.... Sorry, but I want a product when I put cash down.
In the Netherlands you can usually (pre-)order on "rembours", meaning that you pay the postman when the package arrives. Is this possible in the US? You usually pay a small fee, but the upside is that you get to keep the interest instead of the store, and the store has an incentive to get you your product early.
Jon's from Norway, not Holland.
But, as most Americans know, Holland is the capital of Norway.
Oh man, reading that page is funny. I love this quote:
I don't see many sales in the future of iPod.
...from one "LoudMusic". Ranks right up there with "640 KB should be enough for everybody"... :-)
No, you're talking about the wrong kind of famous person. I think the grandparent post meant the kind of famous people that most people have heard of.
Or, more probably, the kind of famous person that most Americans have heard of.
Stupid Flanders...
Unfortunately for your joke, Flanders is the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Unless the joke is so deep that it actually imitates Homer getting things wrong as usual, then it's very good. :-)
I highly doubt that European broadcasters are not encrypting their premium channels (and likely non-broadcast channels as well). What are you able to watch on your card? Do you have another device feeding it?
They are encrypting them (in fact in the Netherlands the cable providers have the annoying habit of encrypting almost everything, including the free channels), but a PC with the right equipment can decrypt them just like a set-top box can. I have a DVB-C PCI card with a separate CI card which connects to it, an Alphacrypt CAM that goes in the CI card, and the smartcard that I got from my cable provider goes in the CAM. Note that this is all perfectly legal off-the-shelf hardware. It decrypts all the encrypted channels that are included in my package (including the HD ones, and the MPEG4 ones).
I suppose you would know better then me, but it really makes me extra depressed to think that just the US, Canada, and Mexico consumers are in this boat (or maybe that gives me hope.. I'm not sure).
It does look like that's the current situation. I know of no plans to introduce schemes that would stop PC's from being able to receive encrypted HD content. The cable providers are just now rolling out digital PVR's and HD set-top boxes, with which my setup is compatible, so they're not going to change the way they work anytime soon.
MythTV has HDTV support for broadcast and Cable HD, but lacks a means of decrypting these streams.
There seems to be a lot of this going around. It must be an American thing, perhaps something to do with ATSC, the DMCA, the FCC or some other three or four letter word? Like I said in another post, I can watch encrypted HDTV channels fine with my DVB-C PCI card (specifically, a Technotrend Budget C-1500). But I think DVB is the European standard.