I totally agree with those who say that the traditional alarm systems are primarily for the insurance companies. Lower quotes and simpler claims.
I have a good alarm system. Of course installed by an alarm company and, of course, hugely overpriced, even while I believe I had a decent deal on it. And it is certified etc. And it is a wireless one (100% cellular). And I did put enough stickers and labels to make sure the potential intruders understand that. The primary purpose of the alarm system is to scare off the regular bulgars, the amateurs who hope to steal something - whatever they can find. I do not poses any real valuables so I doubt it would be interesting for more professional thieves to visit me. For others - I want them to know that there will be noise when they break in and there is no line to cut so the police will be alerted. Yes, the noise will probably stop once they destroy the siren, but it takes only few seconds for the alarm system to send the signal over cellular network and it is impossible to find it that quickly to disable. Again, for an ordinary bulgar, not someone who is targeting that home specifically. And once the signal is sent there is a chance that if the police crew is eating doughnuts nearby they actually may be there in few minutes.
Now about the DIY system. I am playing with home automation, Insteon etc. It is one of my pet projects to create a "smarter home" that would also go further in terms of protecting itself. By no means I am planning to replace the "certified" system - because of the insurance. I would like to put more motion sensors and cameras outside to have a kind of "early detection". I want to make sure that whoever approaches the house is aware that he has been detected, watched, filmed and someone may be alerted about his presence. This may discourage many people. Same for the "away from home" mode. I have enough smart light switches at home to set up a scene that will turn the lights on and off in such a pattern that one might think there is someone at home while we may be away - at least unless they spend enough time on surveillance.
I think the ideal system is the one that would alert me over my mobile phone ASAP, even before someone breaks into the house. So I can look at the external and/or internal cameras and see what is going on around the house. After that it is up to me to act. I can call the police. I can call my neighbour to look outside and call the police. I can remotely turn on the lights and even trigger the real alarm if needed.
I think there is something missing in this story. Personally, if I was wearing something that does not offend the people and I was asked by some McDonalds employee (not using any adjectives here:) ) to explain what I am wearing - I would just leave the place immediately. There are so many restaurants in Paris (!!!). Side note: going to McDonalds in Paris is very American;) Unless the question was out of curiosity - otherwise it is not your business. If an employee is asking this question - he/she does not respect me as your customer. And I am not eating at the place where I am not shown at least minimum level of respect. Period.
It looks like bashing the "rich" is a common trend these days. Some people just have problems with the definition of "rich":)
No, rich people are not less moral. I saw many poor people who have no moral at all. I see little correlation between the amount of wealth and the moral. It depends on one's background, education, parents, personal issues etc - that defines how moral the person would be. It is just that the rich people are sometimes more visible and it is easier for them to express themselves publicly if they with to do so.
I have no problem if the guy next to me makes 100 times more than I do and I do not think he owes me anything at all. Well, unless he is making the money by stealing the goods from my home;) In most of the cases the people who make much more money than I do deserve that because they have more guts, skills, energy etc. I believe it is totally wrong to say that the rich people "own" anything to the society - in addition to the normal contributions every person has to do, typically in form of taxes.
However, if someone who is richer than me believes (and proves with his/her behavior) that he or she has more rights, or is free from certain obligations - then it is a different story. But this is why we need the laws that set the rules for everyone, that are strictly enforced for every single person and that are simple enough so they cannot be bended in favor of a particular individual if he is more wealthy.
???? I do not get it. I understand that bashing RIM is "a la mode" these days, but I think it is an overkill. Any device can be hacked when it is locally accessible. Any. There is no architecture that can withstand an attack if it can be performed while having physical access to the system. It is just a question of time and tools. And for many consumer devices it is just not practical - not too many people are interested in jailbreaking Panasonic microwaves.
The quality of the architecture is determined how hard is to break into someone's device while having some kind of remote access to it - user-driven or from the network.
I am sure Bill can afford paying extra. For an average investor it means my cost of investing - and cost of all financial services everyone is using - will increase. Probably by a small margin, depending how greedy the government would be - but still. Personally I am always against any additional tax that does not bring any value to me as to the user of the service in question. Am I going to be better protected against corporate fraud? Against my broker's misconduct? Against other types of crime that are associated with financial industry? No, this tax is to patch a small hole somewhere else. If I am to pay extra for a particular service, I have to be compensated by lowering the generic income tax. I am all for "pay per use" model, even when it is applied to the government system - but it has to be fair and "pay per use" implies "do not pay for what you do not use". As long as this rule does not work, I would be against any additional specialized taxes.
Because the average lifespan we observe now is something that the people born 60-80 years ago can be proud of:) We do not have the numbers for the people born 40 years ago. We do not have any numbers for the people born 10 or less years ago. I suspect that (thanks to our lifestyle, food industry, environment, global problems etc) the effective lifespan, i.e. what we will have to deal with in next 30-40 years will probably raise for a while and then will start dropping. I do not think that the people born 10-20 years ago will probably live, on average, less than the people born 60-40 years ago.
These "superior technologies" are just too difficult to use for most of the people. Look, who deals with faxes typically? Receptionists? And all others who need to send them something.
Fax has a number of advantages over any other system that allows to transfer images: - universally compatible (99.99% or something like this) - plug-and-play (plug into standard phone outlet) - easily addressable (can sent to any number and do not need any special credentials to "enter" the system) - can put plain paper into it - immediately produces hard copy of the document (no need for a computer to open the document and print it - most of the fax users absolutely want it on the paper) - cost-effective (most of the faxes are sent locally or to toll-free numbers anyway)
As long as there is no alternative that offers all of these features (in some way at least;) ) faxes won't die. I would actually imagine a device that could probably change the picture - a fax machine that uses cellular data network to send faxes to a service centre which forwards them to the recipient using any method that recipient supports - down to regular fax if that's the only method). This kind of machine that does not "plus" into the phone line could probably help to break the dependency on the phone network. And once it is broken, the users of these machines will gradually use more advanced features (those who can appreciate them).
I think it is impossible to be absolutely unable to learn new things. But it is not so much about a language, it is usually about the experience with a particular platform (and the language(s) it typically uses). Learning Ruby won't immediately put you on par with anyone who did 2 years or Ruby development. And anyone faces this problem - not only older people. However, there is a perception that younger people learn faster and they become useful contributors to the projects. Sometimes this is true, sometimes it is not.
I think you have to decide for yourself which career path do you want to take. Being a manager, an architect, a team lead, a consultant, evangelist, generalist...Generally, I think the age kind of filters the software engineering crowd and separates the real specialists from others (who quickly become managers etc;) ). And usually there are challenging and rewarding jobs for these real specialists out there - irregardless of their age.
Since recently I have adopted a following "policy" at home:
- "incoming" documents (bills etc) get payed (by scheduling the payment online with due date minus 1-2 working days) - then they get into the "queue" of the documents to be filed - I scan each document I intend to keep (and the decision is simple: hard drive space is cheap so I scan anything except the spam;) ). I have bought a cheap flat-bed scanner for this that does the job perfectly. Once scanned, I put a little sign on the paper document indicating that it has been scanned. - I store each document in an appropriate directory on my NAS at home - I am trying to use a tagging/searching tool for better results, trying different tools now to find the best one - once scanned, I file the paper documents to a small cabinet or a folder on the shelf - since I have adapted this "policy" only recently, I still have a bunch of documents that are not scanned. I am going to slowly process this backlog from oldest to most recent, destroying the old documents (like bills older than one year, for example) after scanning them - I am going to do regular backups (to DVD or BD) of the document archive. I am not very concerned about the possibility of losing the last 1-2 months of data since I am guaranteed to have these documents in their original paper form:)
My general idea is to reduce the amount of paper documents I keep and, most importantly, to simplify searching for that last bill from the school or for that statement from the broker. And to make sure everyone in my family can find them too.
Could be a cordless phone....May be even FCC certified;)
I have a phone at home (Panasonic, 2.4GHz) that blocks _completely_ my WiFi access point. Tried with two different routers, Linksys WRT54G and Apple Time Capsule. Initiate a call and voila - no WiFi access. Got rid of it and switched to Time Capsule with 2 frequency ranges, this helps a lot (especially if you have more than a dozen of other 802.11g APs around:) ).
Chances to find the source of interference are quite low and, possibly, getting a 5GHz router is easy, they are not that expensive. One thing you can do, if you are sure about 8:30-10 is to use any software that scans WiFi networks around (Kismet?) to find the new network that appears around 8:30. If you can identify the network, you can try to track down the source - walk around with the laptop, measure signal strength, try to guess the direction.
Depending on how good you are with your neighbors, you can also try to drop them a polite note asking to help to identify the wireless device causing troubles for others. Offering free help to reconfigure it:) Assuming the owner does not use this device on purpose:)
Some of the UPS drivers actually go even further - they just do not stop at the STOP signs. Especially efficient and time-saving when it is done next to the elementary school.
P.S. I saw it myself at least twice:(
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree with those who say that the traditional alarm systems are primarily for the insurance companies. Lower quotes and simpler claims.
I have a good alarm system. Of course installed by an alarm company and, of course, hugely overpriced, even while I believe I had a decent deal on it. And it is certified etc. And it is a wireless one (100% cellular). And I did put enough stickers and labels to make sure the potential intruders understand that. The primary purpose of the alarm system is to scare off the regular bulgars, the amateurs who hope to steal something - whatever they can find. I do not poses any real valuables so I doubt it would be interesting for more professional thieves to visit me. For others - I want them to know that there will be noise when they break in and there is no line to cut so the police will be alerted. Yes, the noise will probably stop once they destroy the siren, but it takes only few seconds for the alarm system to send the signal over cellular network and it is impossible to find it that quickly to disable. Again, for an ordinary bulgar, not someone who is targeting that home specifically. And once the signal is sent there is a chance that if the police crew is eating doughnuts nearby they actually may be there in few minutes.
Now about the DIY system. I am playing with home automation, Insteon etc. It is one of my pet projects to create a "smarter home" that would also go further in terms of protecting itself. By no means I am planning to replace the "certified" system - because of the insurance. I would like to put more motion sensors and cameras outside to have a kind of "early detection". I want to make sure that whoever approaches the house is aware that he has been detected, watched, filmed and someone may be alerted about his presence. This may discourage many people. Same for the "away from home" mode. I have enough smart light switches at home to set up a scene that will turn the lights on and off in such a pattern that one might think there is someone at home while we may be away - at least unless they spend enough time on surveillance.
I think the ideal system is the one that would alert me over my mobile phone ASAP, even before someone breaks into the house. So I can look at the external and/or internal cameras and see what is going on around the house. After that it is up to me to act. I can call the police. I can call my neighbour to look outside and call the police. I can remotely turn on the lights and even trigger the real alarm if needed.
I think there is something missing in this story. Personally, if I was wearing something that does not offend the people and I was asked by some McDonalds employee (not using any adjectives here :) ) to explain what I am wearing - I would just leave the place immediately. There are so many restaurants in Paris (!!!). Side note: going to McDonalds in Paris is very American ;)
Unless the question was out of curiosity - otherwise it is not your business. If an employee is asking this question - he/she does not respect me as your customer. And I am not eating at the place where I am not shown at least minimum level of respect. Period.
It looks like bashing the "rich" is a common trend these days. Some people just have problems with the definition of "rich" :)
No, rich people are not less moral. I saw many poor people who have no moral at all. I see little correlation between the amount of wealth and the moral. It depends on one's background, education, parents, personal issues etc - that defines how moral the person would be. It is just that the rich people are sometimes more visible and it is easier for them to express themselves publicly if they with to do so.
I have no problem if the guy next to me makes 100 times more than I do and I do not think he owes me anything at all. Well, unless he is making the money by stealing the goods from my home ;) In most of the cases the people who make much more money than I do deserve that because they have more guts, skills, energy etc. I believe it is totally wrong to say that the rich people "own" anything to the society - in addition to the normal contributions every person has to do, typically in form of taxes.
However, if someone who is richer than me believes (and proves with his/her behavior) that he or she has more rights, or is free from certain obligations - then it is a different story. But this is why we need the laws that set the rules for everyone, that are strictly enforced for every single person and that are simple enough so they cannot be bended in favor of a particular individual if he is more wealthy.
So, viruses for Windows 8 will be also portable to WP8? :)
???? I do not get it. I understand that bashing RIM is "a la mode" these days, but I think it is an overkill. Any device can be hacked when it is locally accessible. Any. There is no architecture that can withstand an attack if it can be performed while having physical access to the system. It is just a question of time and tools. And for many consumer devices it is just not practical - not too many people are interested in jailbreaking Panasonic microwaves.
The quality of the architecture is determined how hard is to break into someone's device while having some kind of remote access to it - user-driven or from the network.
I am sure Bill can afford paying extra. For an average investor it means my cost of investing - and cost of all financial services everyone is using - will increase. Probably by a small margin, depending how greedy the government would be - but still. Personally I am always against any additional tax that does not bring any value to me as to the user of the service in question. Am I going to be better protected against corporate fraud? Against my broker's misconduct? Against other types of crime that are associated with financial industry? No, this tax is to patch a small hole somewhere else. If I am to pay extra for a particular service, I have to be compensated by lowering the generic income tax. I am all for "pay per use" model, even when it is applied to the government system - but it has to be fair and "pay per use" implies "do not pay for what you do not use". As long as this rule does not work, I would be against any additional specialized taxes.
Because the average lifespan we observe now is something that the people born 60-80 years ago can be proud of :) We do not have the numbers for the people born 40 years ago. We do not have any numbers for the people born 10 or less years ago. I suspect that (thanks to our lifestyle, food industry, environment, global problems etc) the effective lifespan, i.e. what we will have to deal with in next 30-40 years will probably raise for a while and then will start dropping. I do not think that the people born 10-20 years ago will probably live, on average, less than the people born 60-40 years ago.
These "superior technologies" are just too difficult to use for most of the people. Look, who deals with faxes typically? Receptionists? And all others who need to send them something.
Fax has a number of advantages over any other system that allows to transfer images:
- universally compatible (99.99% or something like this)
- plug-and-play (plug into standard phone outlet)
- easily addressable (can sent to any number and do not need any special credentials to "enter" the system)
- can put plain paper into it
- immediately produces hard copy of the document (no need for a computer to open the document and print it - most of the fax users absolutely want it on the paper)
- cost-effective (most of the faxes are sent locally or to toll-free numbers anyway)
As long as there is no alternative that offers all of these features (in some way at least ;) ) faxes won't die. I would actually imagine a device that could probably change the picture - a fax machine that uses cellular data network to send faxes to a service centre which forwards them to the recipient using any method that recipient supports - down to regular fax if that's the only method). This kind of machine that does not "plus" into the phone line could probably help to break the dependency on the phone network. And once it is broken, the users of these machines will gradually use more advanced features (those who can appreciate them).
I think it is impossible to be absolutely unable to learn new things. But it is not so much about a language, it is usually about the experience with a particular platform (and the language(s) it typically uses). Learning Ruby won't immediately put you on par with anyone who did 2 years or Ruby development. And anyone faces this problem - not only older people. However, there is a perception that younger people learn faster and they become useful contributors to the projects. Sometimes this is true, sometimes it is not.
I think you have to decide for yourself which career path do you want to take. Being a manager, an architect, a team lead, a consultant, evangelist, generalist...Generally, I think the age kind of filters the software engineering crowd and separates the real specialists from others (who quickly become managers etc ;) ). And usually there are challenging and rewarding jobs for these real specialists out there - irregardless of their age.
Since recently I have adopted a following "policy" at home:
- "incoming" documents (bills etc) get payed (by scheduling the payment online with due date minus 1-2 working days) ;) ). I have bought a cheap flat-bed scanner for this that does the job perfectly. Once scanned, I put a little sign on the paper document indicating that it has been scanned. :)
- then they get into the "queue" of the documents to be filed
- I scan each document I intend to keep (and the decision is simple: hard drive space is cheap so I scan anything except the spam
- I store each document in an appropriate directory on my NAS at home
- I am trying to use a tagging/searching tool for better results, trying different tools now to find the best one
- once scanned, I file the paper documents to a small cabinet or a folder on the shelf
- since I have adapted this "policy" only recently, I still have a bunch of documents that are not scanned. I am going to slowly process this backlog from oldest to most recent, destroying the old documents (like bills older than one year, for example) after scanning them
- I am going to do regular backups (to DVD or BD) of the document archive. I am not very concerned about the possibility of losing the last 1-2 months of data since I am guaranteed to have these documents in their original paper form
My general idea is to reduce the amount of paper documents I keep and, most importantly, to simplify searching for that last bill from the school or for that statement from the broker. And to make sure everyone in my family can find them too.
Oh my...LOL! :)
Could be a cordless phone....May be even FCC certified ;)
I have a phone at home (Panasonic, 2.4GHz) that blocks _completely_ my WiFi access point. Tried with two different routers, Linksys WRT54G and Apple Time Capsule. Initiate a call and voila - no WiFi access. Got rid of it and switched to Time Capsule with 2 frequency ranges, this helps a lot (especially if you have more than a dozen of other 802.11g APs around :) ).
Chances to find the source of interference are quite low and, possibly, getting a 5GHz router is easy, they are not that expensive. One thing you can do, if you are sure about 8:30-10 is to use any software that scans WiFi networks around (Kismet?) to find the new network that appears around 8:30. If you can identify the network, you can try to track down the source - walk around with the laptop, measure signal strength, try to guess the direction.
Depending on how good you are with your neighbors, you can also try to drop them a polite note asking to help to identify the wireless device causing troubles for others. Offering free help to reconfigure it :) Assuming the owner does not use this device on purpose :)
Some of the UPS drivers actually go even further - they just do not stop at the STOP signs. Especially efficient and time-saving when it is done next to the elementary school. P.S. I saw it myself at least twice :(