I use Skype on VoIP links with speakerphones. They mostly do volume control, not a true echo cancellation. This results in half-duplex operation. You cannot speak and hear other people speak at the same time. In a teleconference Skype even selects a speaking participant and writes his name in the box.
A full duplex system requires better isolation between transmit and receive paths, and normally that involves cancellation of one or several echos. That is hard enough on links with fixed parameters, and becomes much more complex when endpoints have varying characteristics.
Also, none of the SIP softphones I've come across have half-decent echo cancellation which makes using them as speakerphones a non-option.
It's hard to do echo cancellation if your processing pipeline is much longer than the echo:-) Latency in Win32 audio (or Linux audio of most common stacks) is between awful and unusable.
Hard phones use DSP, and their pipeline length is defined mostly by filters. Codecs usually stream samples using some sort of I2S, so a sample is available as soon as its last bit arrives. In practice you still want to use blocks of audio data, but you are fully in control of the block size (the DMA size) and you can run the whole piano in real time, unlike desktop OSes. If you have an FPGA then the block size == 1 and your pipeline runs in real time, with one complete sample per clock and with a well known, stable phase shift.
When our users connect to their VPN, a script automatically randomizes their keyboard layout.
You aren't serious, I presume; but since we are talking about cryptography here, a simple one to one translation is trivial to break as long as you know the language. Read "The Gold-Bug" for details:-)
To borrow from XKCD, this cipher is very hard for people to use and is very easy for a computer to break:-)
If you use it to type in a program name (which is how I personally open 99% of programs), you can hit enter to open it.
Maybe half of geeks type names of programs. I do not, for example, but you do (that makes it 50% on a sample size of two.)
However down there, in cubicles of the real world, not more than 0.1% can be bothered to type program names. Why should a worker remember what some specific piece of software is called by its developer? There are pretty strange and unintuitive names there. You could guess for a year and still not be able to figure out that the thing you need is called "pvkfms3" or like, there are many wonders like that in the industry. Command line is dead for a good reason. People don't want to memorize arcane commands; they are simply not paid to do that - they are paid to do their professional duties, be it drafting legal texts or entering orders or creating designs. Workers need clean, simple and portable method of launching applications. Metro screen is confusing because it is too large and is not organized. Windows key is not even in the running. Desktop shortcuts are possible, but how would a user create them without the start menu to copy from?
I think that 3CX may allow the PBX to intercept voice communications
Normally the media streams bypass the PBX, so it cannot intercept the voice even if it wants to. The call setup can be intercepted, of course, because that's what the server does.
One exception is common to all PBXes that implement it. If your configuration warrants that, you can configure the system so that media streams go through the PBX, for one reason or another. This however is not scalable. But then you can record. Some businesses want that (for "quality assurance purposes", of course.)
Regardless, personal PBXes like 3CX (they offer free software for personal use) are intended to be operated by you, on your personal computers. That's what I do at home.
Once the media stream exits your LAN and goes to some other phone elsewhere, the encryption between them is negotiated during the call setup. The PBX does not really care one way or another, as long as both ends of the connection are happy. Jitsi does not give you any magical advantage over a different implementation of the same codec and of the same TLS. Jitsi is nothing but an experimental Java-based softphone. It is not a new, revolutionary thing like Freenet or even Skype. It's just yet another softphone. Secure SIP and RTP are simply relatively new standards, and many older phones don't have them. But newer phones (soft and hard) start supporting those.
Violence is one possible (and probably the most common) symptom of repressed sexuality!!
Finally the reason for wars had been discovered. That includes wars against oppressors and occupiers, apparently. Should we send sex toys to Syria?
In reality most of simulated violence is necessary, justified violence that the player performs to protect his people. This rule is true from Wolfenstein 3D to Doom to Resistance and Halo. The player there is shown as a good guy, not as a monster. Deus Ex does the same, though the player has to make a few choices along the way.
The rule is not universal; there are games like Postal 2 or GTA where violence is either pointless or outright criminal. Those games give a player a chance to look at things from the other side of the law. And as the player finds out soon enough, it's not a walk in the park. Still, in Postal 2 you can start out peacefully and pay for the milk with cash that is so conveniently dispensed to you by the nearest ATM. But then your AI enemies show up... and suddenly you are lawfully defending your hide; you are not a psycho aggressor anymore (if you ever played in that role at all.)
Violent games - and books, and shows, and movies - exist simply because violence is genetically programmed into humans. The creature at the top of the food chain got there not because he was nice to saber-toothed tigers. Violence was the necessary survival trait. Today it still may be necessary, depending on where you live.
Is it possible to abandon violence completely? Yes. But then someone must *guarantee* that your life and your well-being will be protected. There is no entity on this planet, except you, who would even try to do that. It is something that only a brain implant can guarantee; and people with those implants will not be quite humans anymore. They will be... better? worse? Who knows. But they surely won't lift a finger when another batch of The Fithp show up and stomp us into the ground. A single man who somehow frees himself from the control of the implant will have a 100% chance to become the greatest dictator in the history of the planet (see Demolition Man for a possibility like that.)
Perhaps, but you need to tell that to 3CX developers. It was them, not me, who added the tunnel. As they say themselves, there is a reason for the madness:
We are pleased to announce a new release of 3CXPhone for Android, build 1.3.1, which includes the 3CX Tunnel. With the 3CX Tunnel feature, you can proxy all SIP and RTP traffic over a single port and bypass any restrictions that telecom providers implement to block VoIP calls. Often telecom providers will block common VoIP ports.
I have it configured on my Android tablet, and it works fine when I connect from a remote location. A TCP connection is a tad more reliable than a bunch of hacks upon hacks (also known as NAT, STUN and other stuff.) At least proper routing of packets of an established connection is a required and supported function of every router, very much unlike handling of UDP pseudo-connections.
I just tried Jitsi while/. was in maintenance mode. It does not work on this very standard Win7 box. Incoming audio is missing; logs are missing. Uninstalled already - not usable. Bria works fine. My VoIP server (3CX) is on the local subnet.
But even beyond that, Jitsi is not a solution; it's a component. The only way to make it into a solution is by selling your soul for cheap to the likes of Google and Facebook. That would be counter-intuitive for a product that sells itself as a secure thing.
The only reasonably secure way is to run Jitsi on your own SIP server. However that is not an exercise for everyone. A geek can deploy a SIP server, but a common man cannot even understand what we are talking about here.
I'd say that 3CX people already have a solution. First, they have a TCP tunnel that you can use to go through firewalls and specifically NAT. Then they support encryption. And finally, their stuff works. (This is important, despite what some geeks say.) They also have a client for Android (besides the usual suspects.)
However in terms of simplicity Skype leads the pack.
IMO, it's a good example. The sign "60" means that you must not exceed 60, ever, for any reason whatsoever. You are correct in saying that from logical point of view this should be treated as a good advice for a wise and aware driver. But this line of thinking fails when the law gets involved. The law does not allow you to exceed this speed - though it requires you to reduce the speed further in case of adverse weather conditions.
When people regularly, habitually break one law then they are conditioned to say "Well, it's not legal to do $foo, but so what?" This happens often. Furthermore, if you do not want to break the law you are still forced to do so because driving considerably slower than the traffic is unsafe. The same people who drive 70 in 60 zone will drive 40 in 25 zone, and they will fail to turn the lights on when it gets dark, and they will do all kinds of stupid things just because they learned: laws of the road are not mandatory and you can always bend them to your liking. No license, no insurance? No problem. Drunk a little? Big deal, go ahead. Car belches smoke? Who cares. Want to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk? As much as you please. Need to buy alcohol or other drugs while being a teenager? Always can be arranged. And so on. Step by step the rule of the law is diluted. Unwise, politically driven laws - like those speed signs - are a factor too. These days one could afford electronic signs that would display the speed limit for here and now. Do we see those? I see them only on mountain passes, those "Install chains if lights are blinking" - and if you want you are welcome to go ahead on 2WD without chains, lots of luck to you on an incline, in 5" of fresh, soft snow. Your car, your ditch, your towing fees.
It also solved the problems with Gypsies. They were forced to work, or jailed.
Largely, yes. The step #0 was to convince Gypsies that they should get houses for themselves and live like everyone else. The time of wandering tribes is long gone. Here is some music from a Soviet movie about Gypsies (one, to be specific.) Still, small groups of Gypsies could be found here and there, but by then they were mostly harmless.
Obviously, that sort of arrangement was untenable - workers ended up producing stuff no one wanted, also quantity went over quality.
Yes and no. Central planning was certainly poorly done. But this was time before computers. Good computers, with enough memory to manage the whole country, appeared only by 2000 or so. Planning with pencil and paper had no chance of success. Solving a system of linear equations with a few billion variables might be taxing even today, short of building specialized hardware. You also need correct and timely data to feed into this system. This couldn't happen before Internet (the system would oscillate from day zero.)
On the other hand, the capitalist method simply threw people at the problem. A businessman miscalculates - for the same reason, out of lack of information - and all his lfe savings are gone, and he joins the happy bunch of homeless under the nearest bridge. Is this better? In terms of the society - perhaps it is better indeed, because the society is developing in a highly parallel way, with hundreds of competing businessmen trying in every niche of the market. But the price of that success is high.
Quality of products, and scarcity under socialism are more related to the problem of governmental constraints on every economic activity. Until 1990's managers of factories were told everything - who to buy from, what to make, who to sell the product to and for how much. Want to make a better TV set? You are prohibited from doing that because it's not in the five-year plan. Want to buy parts from Japan? Good luck, you have no international currency since it's the state's monopoly. And so on. Many aspects of socialism added up to turn the overall experience into a miserable one.
And then there are the (mostly overlooked by the West) nasty side-effects of communism - absolutely no freedom of press/information, gathering, travel.
Freedom of travel within the country was not restricted. Travel abroad was, and nobody had the foreign money anyhow. But the general problem that you are describing is universal to all societies. Freedoms are tolerated only until they are harmless to the ruling class. Anyone in the USA can try to be a President, but only two selected candidates from two halves of one ruling party can win. Most of the discourse that is currently happening in the USA is 100% safe because both presidential candidates are identical. The MSM is trying hard to find a difference between the two, and there is very little to be found. They have it made; the populace is free to discuss advantages of one puppet vs. another puppet, as if that choice matters. USSR was much worse in this aspect, but in the end the USA will end up just like USSR, in pieces - and renewed in the process.
The reasons most people in the Eastern Europe oppose anything left of social-democratic is not because "sharing is bad and magical hand of free market is the only way" (which seems to be the main reason over here), but because of the lack of freedom the Stalinist implementation of communism carried with it.
I don't even know if Soviet rule can be classified as "left" or "right." On one hand, it had social services extended to everyone (medical, jobs, pensions.) On the other hand, the armed G-man was forcing you to work for the government. It was your choice where to work, but you worked for the state regardless. You could not work for yourself; severe limits were established between 1930's and 1980's on any collective work. The state was deat
I wonder what's the total amount robbed each year by "conventional" robbers (e.g. 24/7 stores, bank heists, etc). 1 billion? Half a billion?
Using the FBI's average valuation of $6,152 per stolen vehicle, the 737,142 vehicles stolen during 2010 caused estimated property losses of $4.5 billion. link
And what's the total amount "robbed" by those white-collar "robbers"...
But you see, when US bankers rob foreigners they are helping the US economy, and therefore they are good guys:-) In reality, naturally, bankers take their profits from everything that ever passes through their hands. Collusion with the government makes it unavoidable.
In countries with no or poor social safety-nets, if you wipe-out/halve some poor/midclass person's savings, you've very likely shortened his/her lifespan.
That is true for everyone except people like Bill Gates, whose health is limited not by money they are willing to spend on it but by human knowledge and ability to deliver.
Not justifying armed robbery of course, just looking at things from a different POV.
Armed robbery is nothing but social security provided by the people themselves, instead of the government.
If you think about it, a social safety net is all about taking money from people who earn it and giving it to people who do not. Reasons vary. You can have a case of a child who is born unable to work (Greeks would dump such a child and not think twice.) You can have a case of a firefighter who saved someone but got injured. You can have a case of a homeowner who was wounded by a robber. Or, far more likely, you can have a case of someone who just doesn't want to work.
All social safety nets are open to abuse. USSR had an excellent safety net; it was called "jobs for everyone." There was no social security, outside of pensions for genuinely injured. Those were given only to old people (no special requirements here) and to people who were proven, by a team of doctors, to be unable to work. That was not an easy test. There were several groups of disability, and the money depended on how much you were unable to work. Everyone else had to work. Jobs were available. Perhaps not good ones, but you could live even on salary of a night guard at a construction site. That was the only real safety net - availability of jobs. If an able-bodied man fails to work into the prison he goes (as soon as the local police detects the violation.)
IMO, you cannot have any other safety net. It will be abused beyond belief. That's what is happening. Now the govermnent cannot even go back on its promises. The lumpen proletariat will riot and destroy the whole country if checks stop coming. Reportedly, half of US citizens do not pay taxes - this means that they are either earning very little or they are on social security. The other half is not that enthused about paying for that.
Once someone gets onto social security there is no way back into the productive society. What employer will hire a man who hasn't worked for years? In USSR such a person wasn't possible; but let's say you were in prison and you are released. You would be accepted at any construction site, for example - and if you wanted you could talk to your police contact (who is following up on you) and he maybe would assist in getting you hired at the place of your choosing. In the USA no such system exists. Once you fall out of sync you are a lost bit, not wanted anymore and replaced by other bits many times since then.
People on social security then necessarily have tons of time to waste between their checks. Hence the crime. First of all, it's something to do. Then it's easy money. Then it's not reportable to the tax man, so your checks will keep coming. But in essence being robbed at your home by a masked intruder wielding a gun and being robbed at your wallet by the faceless government wielding a gun are
Like prohibition, trying to enforce law like this does more harm than good, as it gets people started at a very early age to have no inner respect for law, obeying it not for the common good, but only for fear of punishment if caught.
I'm afraid you are about 50 or 100 years (if not more) too late. I don't know how it is in NZ, but in the USA respect for the law is not even a theoretical concept anymore. Widespread violations cannot be detected and the law enforced; this leads to loss of fear of punishment. You do not need to go too far to see proof of that. Everyone drives faster than the speed limit allows and the police does not even bother stopping anyone unless they are way over the limit. People jaywalk with no care in the world; robbers rob 24/7 stores as if it is their personal ATM; people park under signs "no parking", have sex in public parks, set up camps in public places, use drugs, and take dumps on police cars. What rule of law are you talking about? It's pure anarchy, with occasional firefighting done by few LEOs.
There is no law to respect either. Over the years new laws accumulated up to a whole library of books - some with laws and other with their interpretations. Most people quite reasonably think that the law is not protecting them. And how it can be, with laws against "disorderly conduct" and with people arrested for "resisting arrest" or for filming police or for taking photos of cities? On the other hand, real criminals (petty or not) are in and out of jail faster than you can keep track of them. The police is most certainly not your friend; LEOs are not interested in helping you and they have no duty to help you. They might kill you, though, if you give them half of an excuse, because safety of one officer is more important than ten dead bodies of the rabble.
With this whole train wreck continuing downhill with ever accelerating speed we will see more anarchy and fewer places where an nonest person can safely walk around. Downloads of music are just a minor blip on the radar of widespread lawlessness.
It should be a dismissable offence it bring this thing any where near where you work.
All you need is to ship with UPS a sealed carton of ten or twenty of these devices, each in its own professionally printed box, to the maintenance department of the target company. Lowly workers, just a notch above janitors, will not be asking their bosses about such a simple item, and power strips are always needed. You can do this even if you never set foot into the country where the target company resides.
If you have a specific joke in mind then it whooshed way above my head - I know nothing about drugs, cooking or road repairs. I specified the distance because that's what I saw on the odometer last time. I usually visit the same set of places and know the people there.
Cash may be needed in various places to pay for services, in case plastic is not accepted. The longer the trip the higher is the chance that you hit some sharp object on the road and need a tire patched up or replaced. Most farmers who could help don't carry a Visa terminal in their trucks. If you choose to buy some fruits along the way the cash will get you more (just don't ask why it is so.) Of course Burger King will be happy with your plastic.
Have you ever taken out $300 at four o'clock in the morning for something positive?
I seldom use cash, but when I do I might leave it up to the last minute to obtain the money. When I go on a 420 mile road trip I will need some cash with me. If I depart early I might stop by the bank at 4am, or 5am - easily. The same applies if I go to a flea market, they open at 6am.
I would be far more suspicious of withdrawals at midnight or 1am. Very few people are out and about at that time. But 4 or 5am is already a viable time for early-rising honest workers and travelers. If your airplane departs at 6:30am and you need one hour to get there, and TSA insists that you allow at least two or three hours for them to molest you, how early would you be leaving your house?
That board, though, looks like the guts of a tablet or notebook, not a development board.
It's actually written on the board that is the A721 Mainboard. A721 is a Chinese tablet, and Google is full of links and pictures. Alibaba offers it for USD $79.5~95.5 each, fully assembled and with the battery. Selling just the bare board for $62 is probably fair.
My life is full of technology still, some of it more advanced than 95% of the population, and I enjoy it, but I don't feel that I have to use every new thing that comes along, especially if it's just a cover for marketing and social engineering.
Or, to rephrase:
You are happy to use any new thing that you want. However you do not allow every new thing that comes along to use you.
How, without a redesign of the board and without using a larger MCU?
I can understand that more features require more memory, and they cost more too. But that is counter to the mantra of IPv6 proponents that the change is easy and it costs little. There are millions of Polycom IP phones out there that can only talk IPv4, for example. They cannot be upgraded.
Cost of those little chips cannot be disregarded either. The 128 kB part is $6.99 but a similar 512 kB part is $9.79, a 40% increase. The price of your product will go up by a few percent because of that. Doing that during recession, with US labor and associated costs (taxes) already going through the roof will kill a few thousand more US jobs across the industry through reduction of sales.
Why don't we try to keep the discussion civil, without debasing ourselves with personal attacks? I am discussing the problem from a scientific point of view. At least I'm trying to. I may be wrong in some or all of my statements; your corrections, based on your own analysis and experience, are always welcome. It's difficult to generalize a behavior having only few observations as data points; though literary examples help.
Everyone can control his (or her) voluntary reactions. You can turn away and not look. You can choose your words. You can completely ignore some people. You can walk away. Even that "creepy letchy guy at the office" can do it; he just doesn't want to.
It becomes more difficult with lower level of reactions, such as where you look when you do look. Most of these things happen before your mind can react - and you correct yourself as fast as you can. Still, women may (will?) be displeased that instead of looking into their eyes you look elsewhere (at least now and then, when you get distracted.) This is not unique to men in any way; if you walk into the office wearing only briefs and well tanned skin, with good muscles under it, you will catch quite a few looks from womenfolk - even if you wish that they don't look at you. Remember that scene from "Terminator 1" when the Terminator walks into a bar?
Note also that the comment was largely discussing the situation when a woman wears clothing that is more sexy than usual. GP was explaining why it is done, and my response was only about the unintended consequences. The situation is far less likely to occur when people stick to more formal, or more neutral, clothing. Choice of clothes is also a signal (as GP said) but that signal can easily be incorrectly interpreted - especially when there is no codebook for this cipher and everyone makes one up as they go.
All we're asking, if we're asking for anything at all, is that you develop a little flexibility. There's a time for being a professional man, and a time for being a sexually aroused man.
Men cannot effectively control these reactions, short of whipping themselves, or taking an ice-cold shower every other minute. Even monks cannot claim that they are in control of themselves. What you are asking about is technically impossible in most cases (excepting blind, deaf, dead, very old, or gay men.) Humans look at other humans in well defined sequences, and science discovered those long time ago. Those sequences are selected by evolution as being most beneficial for safety and replication. Humans are not in control of that - it happens faster than one can think. Perhaps a blindfold will help? But no, this will be seen by women as an affront as well:-)
If a man makes a heroic effort to ignore your sexy attire, still he will be extremely distracted by the circumstances; he will not entirely be a professional focused on the job. Such a man will likely be unwilling to work with you in the future, seeing you not as a colleague but as a distraction that cannot end well. It will be a purely logical decision to stay away from a troublemaker. Office is for work, and only a fool would use it differently. (Not that there aren't many fools around.)
And most of us women, while yes, we do sometimes dress sexy at work, that's not a comeon for you at work.
Similarly, a man might hop into his Porsche 911 and drive through a city at 180 mph, but that's not an invitation to the Highway Patrol to stop him.
Unfortunately, some things are related. If y=f(x) you cannot manipulate 'x' with impunity and expect the 'y' to be where you like it to be today. Pull a cat by the tail and it will say meow.
That's a meet me after work proposition.
Many women take it for granted that men can unerringly read their thoughts and extract hidden meanings from little details. However in practice men will have difficulty in reading your intentions even if you print them on a placard and carry it with you everywhere:-) The art of communicating hidden messages with small gestures or positions of a hat died along with the courts of kings. Men just don't bother inferring hints anymore; among men it is a good rule to communicate simply and clearly, so that your message does not have to be decoded. The language of the army is an ultimate example of that - the cost of misunderstanding there is extremely high; you speak clearly or people die.
You can't buy an IPv4 only device pretty much, as almost anything that has Net capabilities has at least a dual stack.
IPv6 in LWIP is still experimental. Every byte counts - I don't have a 1 GB DDR3 connected to a microcontroller. I may have only 64 kB of on-chip RAM for all the networking, on a good day. I already have to count TCBs and active connections. How do you suggest I add IPv6 support to existing and new devices?
I thought that if they're in an endless supply I could use the same life expectancy model on the relationship that silicon valley uses on technology nowadays.
GFs that you can have you do not want. GFs that you want you cannot have. I know a few divorced women, and about 50% of them are damaged goods (that led to their divorce) just as you'd expect it to be from statistics, assuming that both genders are equally stupid (that's a sufficiently true assumption, IMO.) These comprise the majority of the "market" because the good ones are already married. The market thus consists largely of idiots of both genders looking for a match, again and again.
You would be much better off buying an Android tablet every other day and throwing it into trash. It will be cheaper, and the tablet will never scream at you how stupid and useless you are:-)
If you send beautiful women my way, I'm not going to complain.
You will complain as soon as you find out that those beautiful women expect you to feed them (in expensive restaurants) and buy them clothes (all of them that are ever made) and so on. A wife is a very expensive proposal. The difference between a wife and a slave concubine is significant.
Slashdot Mirror
They're designed to make a profit for the guns/bullets manufacturers.
Of course. Every other product in the world is made by manufacturers just to lose money on it.
I use Skype on VoIP links with speakerphones. They mostly do volume control, not a true echo cancellation. This results in half-duplex operation. You cannot speak and hear other people speak at the same time. In a teleconference Skype even selects a speaking participant and writes his name in the box.
A full duplex system requires better isolation between transmit and receive paths, and normally that involves cancellation of one or several echos. That is hard enough on links with fixed parameters, and becomes much more complex when endpoints have varying characteristics.
Also, none of the SIP softphones I've come across have half-decent echo cancellation which makes using them as speakerphones a non-option.
It's hard to do echo cancellation if your processing pipeline is much longer than the echo :-) Latency in Win32 audio (or Linux audio of most common stacks) is between awful and unusable.
Hard phones use DSP, and their pipeline length is defined mostly by filters. Codecs usually stream samples using some sort of I2S, so a sample is available as soon as its last bit arrives. In practice you still want to use blocks of audio data, but you are fully in control of the block size (the DMA size) and you can run the whole piano in real time, unlike desktop OSes. If you have an FPGA then the block size == 1 and your pipeline runs in real time, with one complete sample per clock and with a well known, stable phase shift.
When our users connect to their VPN, a script automatically randomizes their keyboard layout.
You aren't serious, I presume; but since we are talking about cryptography here, a simple one to one translation is trivial to break as long as you know the language. Read "The Gold-Bug" for details :-)
To borrow from XKCD, this cipher is very hard for people to use and is very easy for a computer to break :-)
My damn Roomba still can't manage to finish a floor without being foiled by a chair.
That's why the developers simplified the task.
If you use it to type in a program name (which is how I personally open 99% of programs), you can hit enter to open it.
Maybe half of geeks type names of programs. I do not, for example, but you do (that makes it 50% on a sample size of two.)
However down there, in cubicles of the real world, not more than 0.1% can be bothered to type program names. Why should a worker remember what some specific piece of software is called by its developer? There are pretty strange and unintuitive names there. You could guess for a year and still not be able to figure out that the thing you need is called "pvkfms3" or like, there are many wonders like that in the industry. Command line is dead for a good reason. People don't want to memorize arcane commands; they are simply not paid to do that - they are paid to do their professional duties, be it drafting legal texts or entering orders or creating designs. Workers need clean, simple and portable method of launching applications. Metro screen is confusing because it is too large and is not organized. Windows key is not even in the running. Desktop shortcuts are possible, but how would a user create them without the start menu to copy from?
I think that 3CX may allow the PBX to intercept voice communications
Normally the media streams bypass the PBX, so it cannot intercept the voice even if it wants to. The call setup can be intercepted, of course, because that's what the server does.
One exception is common to all PBXes that implement it. If your configuration warrants that, you can configure the system so that media streams go through the PBX, for one reason or another. This however is not scalable. But then you can record. Some businesses want that (for "quality assurance purposes", of course.)
Regardless, personal PBXes like 3CX (they offer free software for personal use) are intended to be operated by you, on your personal computers. That's what I do at home.
Once the media stream exits your LAN and goes to some other phone elsewhere, the encryption between them is negotiated during the call setup. The PBX does not really care one way or another, as long as both ends of the connection are happy. Jitsi does not give you any magical advantage over a different implementation of the same codec and of the same TLS. Jitsi is nothing but an experimental Java-based softphone. It is not a new, revolutionary thing like Freenet or even Skype. It's just yet another softphone. Secure SIP and RTP are simply relatively new standards, and many older phones don't have them. But newer phones (soft and hard) start supporting those.
Violence is one possible (and probably the most common) symptom of repressed sexuality!!
Finally the reason for wars had been discovered. That includes wars against oppressors and occupiers, apparently. Should we send sex toys to Syria?
In reality most of simulated violence is necessary, justified violence that the player performs to protect his people. This rule is true from Wolfenstein 3D to Doom to Resistance and Halo. The player there is shown as a good guy, not as a monster. Deus Ex does the same, though the player has to make a few choices along the way.
The rule is not universal; there are games like Postal 2 or GTA where violence is either pointless or outright criminal. Those games give a player a chance to look at things from the other side of the law. And as the player finds out soon enough, it's not a walk in the park. Still, in Postal 2 you can start out peacefully and pay for the milk with cash that is so conveniently dispensed to you by the nearest ATM. But then your AI enemies show up ... and suddenly you are lawfully defending your hide; you are not a psycho aggressor anymore (if you ever played in that role at all.)
Violent games - and books, and shows, and movies - exist simply because violence is genetically programmed into humans. The creature at the top of the food chain got there not because he was nice to saber-toothed tigers. Violence was the necessary survival trait. Today it still may be necessary, depending on where you live.
Is it possible to abandon violence completely? Yes. But then someone must *guarantee* that your life and your well-being will be protected. There is no entity on this planet, except you, who would even try to do that. It is something that only a brain implant can guarantee; and people with those implants will not be quite humans anymore. They will be ... better? worse? Who knows. But they surely won't lift a finger when another batch of The Fithp show up and stomp us into the ground. A single man who somehow frees himself from the control of the implant will have a 100% chance to become the greatest dictator in the history of the planet (see Demolition Man for a possibility like that.)
Perhaps, but you need to tell that to 3CX developers. It was them, not me, who added the tunnel. As they say themselves, there is a reason for the madness:
We are pleased to announce a new release of 3CXPhone for Android, build 1.3.1, which includes the 3CX Tunnel. With the 3CX Tunnel feature, you can proxy all SIP and RTP traffic over a single port and bypass any restrictions that telecom providers implement to block VoIP calls. Often telecom providers will block common VoIP ports.
I have it configured on my Android tablet, and it works fine when I connect from a remote location. A TCP connection is a tad more reliable than a bunch of hacks upon hacks (also known as NAT, STUN and other stuff.) At least proper routing of packets of an established connection is a required and supported function of every router, very much unlike handling of UDP pseudo-connections.
I just tried Jitsi while /. was in maintenance mode. It does not work on this very standard Win7 box. Incoming audio is missing; logs are missing. Uninstalled already - not usable. Bria works fine. My VoIP server (3CX) is on the local subnet.
But even beyond that, Jitsi is not a solution; it's a component. The only way to make it into a solution is by selling your soul for cheap to the likes of Google and Facebook. That would be counter-intuitive for a product that sells itself as a secure thing.
The only reasonably secure way is to run Jitsi on your own SIP server. However that is not an exercise for everyone. A geek can deploy a SIP server, but a common man cannot even understand what we are talking about here.
I'd say that 3CX people already have a solution. First, they have a TCP tunnel that you can use to go through firewalls and specifically NAT. Then they support encryption. And finally, their stuff works. (This is important, despite what some geeks say.) They also have a client for Android (besides the usual suspects.)
However in terms of simplicity Skype leads the pack.
That's a very bad example.
IMO, it's a good example. The sign "60" means that you must not exceed 60, ever, for any reason whatsoever. You are correct in saying that from logical point of view this should be treated as a good advice for a wise and aware driver. But this line of thinking fails when the law gets involved. The law does not allow you to exceed this speed - though it requires you to reduce the speed further in case of adverse weather conditions.
When people regularly, habitually break one law then they are conditioned to say "Well, it's not legal to do $foo, but so what?" This happens often. Furthermore, if you do not want to break the law you are still forced to do so because driving considerably slower than the traffic is unsafe. The same people who drive 70 in 60 zone will drive 40 in 25 zone, and they will fail to turn the lights on when it gets dark, and they will do all kinds of stupid things just because they learned: laws of the road are not mandatory and you can always bend them to your liking. No license, no insurance? No problem. Drunk a little? Big deal, go ahead. Car belches smoke? Who cares. Want to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk? As much as you please. Need to buy alcohol or other drugs while being a teenager? Always can be arranged. And so on. Step by step the rule of the law is diluted. Unwise, politically driven laws - like those speed signs - are a factor too. These days one could afford electronic signs that would display the speed limit for here and now. Do we see those? I see them only on mountain passes, those "Install chains if lights are blinking" - and if you want you are welcome to go ahead on 2WD without chains, lots of luck to you on an incline, in 5" of fresh, soft snow. Your car, your ditch, your towing fees.
It also solved the problems with Gypsies. They were forced to work, or jailed.
Largely, yes. The step #0 was to convince Gypsies that they should get houses for themselves and live like everyone else. The time of wandering tribes is long gone. Here is some music from a Soviet movie about Gypsies (one, to be specific.) Still, small groups of Gypsies could be found here and there, but by then they were mostly harmless.
Obviously, that sort of arrangement was untenable - workers ended up producing stuff no one wanted, also quantity went over quality.
Yes and no. Central planning was certainly poorly done. But this was time before computers. Good computers, with enough memory to manage the whole country, appeared only by 2000 or so. Planning with pencil and paper had no chance of success. Solving a system of linear equations with a few billion variables might be taxing even today, short of building specialized hardware. You also need correct and timely data to feed into this system. This couldn't happen before Internet (the system would oscillate from day zero.)
On the other hand, the capitalist method simply threw people at the problem. A businessman miscalculates - for the same reason, out of lack of information - and all his lfe savings are gone, and he joins the happy bunch of homeless under the nearest bridge. Is this better? In terms of the society - perhaps it is better indeed, because the society is developing in a highly parallel way, with hundreds of competing businessmen trying in every niche of the market. But the price of that success is high.
Quality of products, and scarcity under socialism are more related to the problem of governmental constraints on every economic activity. Until 1990's managers of factories were told everything - who to buy from, what to make, who to sell the product to and for how much. Want to make a better TV set? You are prohibited from doing that because it's not in the five-year plan. Want to buy parts from Japan? Good luck, you have no international currency since it's the state's monopoly. And so on. Many aspects of socialism added up to turn the overall experience into a miserable one.
And then there are the (mostly overlooked by the West) nasty side-effects of communism - absolutely no freedom of press/information, gathering, travel.
Freedom of travel within the country was not restricted. Travel abroad was, and nobody had the foreign money anyhow. But the general problem that you are describing is universal to all societies. Freedoms are tolerated only until they are harmless to the ruling class. Anyone in the USA can try to be a President, but only two selected candidates from two halves of one ruling party can win. Most of the discourse that is currently happening in the USA is 100% safe because both presidential candidates are identical. The MSM is trying hard to find a difference between the two, and there is very little to be found. They have it made; the populace is free to discuss advantages of one puppet vs. another puppet, as if that choice matters. USSR was much worse in this aspect, but in the end the USA will end up just like USSR, in pieces - and renewed in the process.
The reasons most people in the Eastern Europe oppose anything left of social-democratic is not because "sharing is bad and magical hand of free market is the only way" (which seems to be the main reason over here), but because of the lack of freedom the Stalinist implementation of communism carried with it.
I don't even know if Soviet rule can be classified as "left" or "right." On one hand, it had social services extended to everyone (medical, jobs, pensions.) On the other hand, the armed G-man was forcing you to work for the government. It was your choice where to work, but you worked for the state regardless. You could not work for yourself; severe limits were established between 1930's and 1980's on any collective work. The state was deat
I wonder what's the total amount robbed each year by "conventional" robbers (e.g. 24/7 stores, bank heists, etc). 1 billion? Half a billion?
Using the FBI's average valuation of $6,152 per stolen vehicle, the 737,142 vehicles stolen during 2010 caused estimated property losses of $4.5 billion. link
And what's the total amount "robbed" by those white-collar "robbers"...
But you see, when US bankers rob foreigners they are helping the US economy, and therefore they are good guys :-) In reality, naturally, bankers take their profits from everything that ever passes through their hands. Collusion with the government makes it unavoidable.
In countries with no or poor social safety-nets, if you wipe-out/halve some poor/midclass person's savings, you've very likely shortened his/her lifespan.
That is true for everyone except people like Bill Gates, whose health is limited not by money they are willing to spend on it but by human knowledge and ability to deliver.
Not justifying armed robbery of course, just looking at things from a different POV.
Armed robbery is nothing but social security provided by the people themselves, instead of the government.
If you think about it, a social safety net is all about taking money from people who earn it and giving it to people who do not. Reasons vary. You can have a case of a child who is born unable to work (Greeks would dump such a child and not think twice.) You can have a case of a firefighter who saved someone but got injured. You can have a case of a homeowner who was wounded by a robber. Or, far more likely, you can have a case of someone who just doesn't want to work.
All social safety nets are open to abuse. USSR had an excellent safety net; it was called "jobs for everyone." There was no social security, outside of pensions for genuinely injured. Those were given only to old people (no special requirements here) and to people who were proven, by a team of doctors, to be unable to work. That was not an easy test. There were several groups of disability, and the money depended on how much you were unable to work. Everyone else had to work. Jobs were available. Perhaps not good ones, but you could live even on salary of a night guard at a construction site. That was the only real safety net - availability of jobs. If an able-bodied man fails to work into the prison he goes (as soon as the local police detects the violation.)
IMO, you cannot have any other safety net. It will be abused beyond belief. That's what is happening. Now the govermnent cannot even go back on its promises. The lumpen proletariat will riot and destroy the whole country if checks stop coming. Reportedly, half of US citizens do not pay taxes - this means that they are either earning very little or they are on social security. The other half is not that enthused about paying for that.
Once someone gets onto social security there is no way back into the productive society. What employer will hire a man who hasn't worked for years? In USSR such a person wasn't possible; but let's say you were in prison and you are released. You would be accepted at any construction site, for example - and if you wanted you could talk to your police contact (who is following up on you) and he maybe would assist in getting you hired at the place of your choosing. In the USA no such system exists. Once you fall out of sync you are a lost bit, not wanted anymore and replaced by other bits many times since then.
People on social security then necessarily have tons of time to waste between their checks. Hence the crime. First of all, it's something to do. Then it's easy money. Then it's not reportable to the tax man, so your checks will keep coming. But in essence being robbed at your home by a masked intruder wielding a gun and being robbed at your wallet by the faceless government wielding a gun are
Like prohibition, trying to enforce law like this does more harm than good, as it gets people started at a very early age to have no inner respect for law, obeying it not for the common good, but only for fear of punishment if caught.
I'm afraid you are about 50 or 100 years (if not more) too late. I don't know how it is in NZ, but in the USA respect for the law is not even a theoretical concept anymore. Widespread violations cannot be detected and the law enforced; this leads to loss of fear of punishment. You do not need to go too far to see proof of that. Everyone drives faster than the speed limit allows and the police does not even bother stopping anyone unless they are way over the limit. People jaywalk with no care in the world; robbers rob 24/7 stores as if it is their personal ATM; people park under signs "no parking", have sex in public parks, set up camps in public places, use drugs, and take dumps on police cars. What rule of law are you talking about? It's pure anarchy, with occasional firefighting done by few LEOs.
There is no law to respect either. Over the years new laws accumulated up to a whole library of books - some with laws and other with their interpretations. Most people quite reasonably think that the law is not protecting them. And how it can be, with laws against "disorderly conduct" and with people arrested for "resisting arrest" or for filming police or for taking photos of cities? On the other hand, real criminals (petty or not) are in and out of jail faster than you can keep track of them. The police is most certainly not your friend; LEOs are not interested in helping you and they have no duty to help you. They might kill you, though, if you give them half of an excuse, because safety of one officer is more important than ten dead bodies of the rabble.
With this whole train wreck continuing downhill with ever accelerating speed we will see more anarchy and fewer places where an nonest person can safely walk around. Downloads of music are just a minor blip on the radar of widespread lawlessness.
It should be a dismissable offence it bring this thing any where near where you work.
All you need is to ship with UPS a sealed carton of ten or twenty of these devices, each in its own professionally printed box, to the maintenance department of the target company. Lowly workers, just a notch above janitors, will not be asking their bosses about such a simple item, and power strips are always needed. You can do this even if you never set foot into the country where the target company resides.
If you have a specific joke in mind then it whooshed way above my head - I know nothing about drugs, cooking or road repairs. I specified the distance because that's what I saw on the odometer last time. I usually visit the same set of places and know the people there.
Cash may be needed in various places to pay for services, in case plastic is not accepted. The longer the trip the higher is the chance that you hit some sharp object on the road and need a tire patched up or replaced. Most farmers who could help don't carry a Visa terminal in their trucks. If you choose to buy some fruits along the way the cash will get you more (just don't ask why it is so.) Of course Burger King will be happy with your plastic.
Have you ever taken out $300 at four o'clock in the morning for something positive?
I seldom use cash, but when I do I might leave it up to the last minute to obtain the money. When I go on a 420 mile road trip I will need some cash with me. If I depart early I might stop by the bank at 4am, or 5am - easily. The same applies if I go to a flea market, they open at 6am.
I would be far more suspicious of withdrawals at midnight or 1am. Very few people are out and about at that time. But 4 or 5am is already a viable time for early-rising honest workers and travelers. If your airplane departs at 6:30am and you need one hour to get there, and TSA insists that you allow at least two or three hours for them to molest you, how early would you be leaving your house?
That board, though, looks like the guts of a tablet or notebook, not a development board.
It's actually written on the board that is the A721 Mainboard. A721 is a Chinese tablet, and Google is full of links and pictures. Alibaba offers it for USD $79.5~95.5 each, fully assembled and with the battery. Selling just the bare board for $62 is probably fair.
My life is full of technology still, some of it more advanced than 95% of the population, and I enjoy it, but I don't feel that I have to use every new thing that comes along, especially if it's just a cover for marketing and social engineering.
Or, to rephrase:
You are happy to use any new thing that you want. However you do not allow every new thing that comes along to use you.
How, without a redesign of the board and without using a larger MCU?
I can understand that more features require more memory, and they cost more too. But that is counter to the mantra of IPv6 proponents that the change is easy and it costs little. There are millions of Polycom IP phones out there that can only talk IPv4, for example. They cannot be upgraded.
Cost of those little chips cannot be disregarded either. The 128 kB part is $6.99 but a similar 512 kB part is $9.79, a 40% increase. The price of your product will go up by a few percent because of that. Doing that during recession, with US labor and associated costs (taxes) already going through the roof will kill a few thousand more US jobs across the industry through reduction of sales.
Why don't we try to keep the discussion civil, without debasing ourselves with personal attacks? I am discussing the problem from a scientific point of view. At least I'm trying to. I may be wrong in some or all of my statements; your corrections, based on your own analysis and experience, are always welcome. It's difficult to generalize a behavior having only few observations as data points; though literary examples help.
Everyone can control his (or her) voluntary reactions. You can turn away and not look. You can choose your words. You can completely ignore some people. You can walk away. Even that "creepy letchy guy at the office" can do it; he just doesn't want to.
It becomes more difficult with lower level of reactions, such as where you look when you do look. Most of these things happen before your mind can react - and you correct yourself as fast as you can. Still, women may (will?) be displeased that instead of looking into their eyes you look elsewhere (at least now and then, when you get distracted.) This is not unique to men in any way; if you walk into the office wearing only briefs and well tanned skin, with good muscles under it, you will catch quite a few looks from womenfolk - even if you wish that they don't look at you. Remember that scene from "Terminator 1" when the Terminator walks into a bar?
Note also that the comment was largely discussing the situation when a woman wears clothing that is more sexy than usual. GP was explaining why it is done, and my response was only about the unintended consequences. The situation is far less likely to occur when people stick to more formal, or more neutral, clothing. Choice of clothes is also a signal (as GP said) but that signal can easily be incorrectly interpreted - especially when there is no codebook for this cipher and everyone makes one up as they go.
All we're asking, if we're asking for anything at all, is that you develop a little flexibility. There's a time for being a professional man, and a time for being a sexually aroused man.
Men cannot effectively control these reactions, short of whipping themselves, or taking an ice-cold shower every other minute. Even monks cannot claim that they are in control of themselves. What you are asking about is technically impossible in most cases (excepting blind, deaf, dead, very old, or gay men.) Humans look at other humans in well defined sequences, and science discovered those long time ago. Those sequences are selected by evolution as being most beneficial for safety and replication. Humans are not in control of that - it happens faster than one can think. Perhaps a blindfold will help? But no, this will be seen by women as an affront as well :-)
If a man makes a heroic effort to ignore your sexy attire, still he will be extremely distracted by the circumstances; he will not entirely be a professional focused on the job. Such a man will likely be unwilling to work with you in the future, seeing you not as a colleague but as a distraction that cannot end well. It will be a purely logical decision to stay away from a troublemaker. Office is for work, and only a fool would use it differently. (Not that there aren't many fools around.)
And most of us women, while yes, we do sometimes dress sexy at work, that's not a comeon for you at work.
Similarly, a man might hop into his Porsche 911 and drive through a city at 180 mph, but that's not an invitation to the Highway Patrol to stop him.
Unfortunately, some things are related. If y=f(x) you cannot manipulate 'x' with impunity and expect the 'y' to be where you like it to be today. Pull a cat by the tail and it will say meow.
That's a meet me after work proposition.
Many women take it for granted that men can unerringly read their thoughts and extract hidden meanings from little details. However in practice men will have difficulty in reading your intentions even if you print them on a placard and carry it with you everywhere :-) The art of communicating hidden messages with small gestures or positions of a hat died along with the courts of kings. Men just don't bother inferring hints anymore; among men it is a good rule to communicate simply and clearly, so that your message does not have to be decoded. The language of the army is an ultimate example of that - the cost of misunderstanding there is extremely high; you speak clearly or people die.
You can't buy an IPv4 only device pretty much, as almost anything that has Net capabilities has at least a dual stack.
IPv6 in LWIP is still experimental. Every byte counts - I don't have a 1 GB DDR3 connected to a microcontroller. I may have only 64 kB of on-chip RAM for all the networking, on a good day. I already have to count TCBs and active connections. How do you suggest I add IPv6 support to existing and new devices?
I thought that if they're in an endless supply I could use the same life expectancy model on the relationship that silicon valley uses on technology nowadays.
GFs that you can have you do not want. GFs that you want you cannot have. I know a few divorced women, and about 50% of them are damaged goods (that led to their divorce) just as you'd expect it to be from statistics, assuming that both genders are equally stupid (that's a sufficiently true assumption, IMO.) These comprise the majority of the "market" because the good ones are already married. The market thus consists largely of idiots of both genders looking for a match, again and again.
You would be much better off buying an Android tablet every other day and throwing it into trash. It will be cheaper, and the tablet will never scream at you how stupid and useless you are :-)
If you send beautiful women my way, I'm not going to complain.
You will complain as soon as you find out that those beautiful women expect you to feed them (in expensive restaurants) and buy them clothes (all of them that are ever made) and so on. A wife is a very expensive proposal. The difference between a wife and a slave concubine is significant.