Actually having greater punishment through law tends to make the more violent crimes even more violent. If a man is going to do 25 years for assault with a deadly weapon (gun, knife, kebob) he is more likely to just murder you and save himself a witness.
It might seem that way, but there is really no better way. If you do nothing then you are screwed. If you do anything then someone will complain or find fault. The system we use is highly effective and we haven't had issues with it in the many years we've used it.
While the hypothetical issue people always use is one of the 11 year old knowing more than the 40 year old who runs a real shop does and yet charges excessive amounts seems to show an issue; the reality is that commonly the 11 year old got the virus downloading porn or MSN smiley packs from his friends, and the mother spends $50-$100 at a local shop getting it taken care of by a pro who notifies her of the issue (which she then punishes the child for). We all know the stories of the retarded shop tech who can't ID his own ass despite the zipcode the state has assigned it, but the reality is that most people who own a shop and charge reasonable rates (or even high rates) can do so because they are experienced and have good word of mouth business.
Not a bad idea actually... though many users can't seem to work a remote control properly, so using lynx is likely out of the question.
The third offense is really different depending on the circumstances. We'll usually take a more involved and personal approach to these, but if we don't get it resolved after this point we have no choice but to ask them to either control their systems or find other services. We send a tech out to their house to check for open wifi, extra PCs that they didn't clean, etc. I've only ever seen us terminate access for one person ever, and they refused to secure their Wifi or work with us at all to resolve the issue.
First off, I think you read too far into some of my statements and this is possibly upsetting you a bit too much. I've been in this business for a while now, and believe me when I say that the last thing I want is to alienate my customers; in fact unlike many ISPs we don't even care if you are hosting a server from your home; we merely request (quite reasonably) that if your PC becomes infected you clean it for the safety of our other customers.
If you do on-site service then I'm certain you understand that whatever you have on your PC is your responsibility and thus making you liable for damages caused to others. By requesting our customers have their PC checked and cleaned/repaired by a professional on the SECOND (not first) offense we are attempting to help both the user (who may have been ignorant of the trouble being caused) and everyone else. If you noticed, I didn't state that we sniff packets or persecute them; we merely require that they be responsible users when accessing our network. Out of the possible hundred times I've done this not a single time did a user get angry; quite the contrary actually. I receive thank you letters (twice actually) or emails (a few) that they are happy we're looking out for them. As a service we also offer free antivirus to our customers upon request (though I usually suggest downloading something like Avast so they don't have to deal with licenses through us).
If you find our tactics heavy handed or obtrusive then I think you might have a skewed and excessively open expectation of what should be allowed on a network. In the end, no matter what people say about "net neutrality" and carrier immunity ISPs will still blackhole each other for not controlling their user base when it comes to attacks. I think the proactive approach we take with our customers is more personal and effective than other options out there.
This is the very reason at the ISP I work for we cut our user's access to the net once we discover they are spamming/botting/flooding anyone for any reason. We block them off, mark their account, and notify them by phone of why they lost internet access. Once they notify us they've had their PC cleaned we allow them access again. If they do it again though (and we monitor their bandwidth usage for two weeks to be sure they didn't miss something) we require them to bring in a receipt showing they had their PC cleaned by professionals and that they have antivirus before turning them on again. AT&T (if they really are attempting to protect them... which is likely BS) made the poor choice. We receive notification from AT&T when our customers SPAM or flood anyone about how they'll blackhole their IP if we don't stop them (effectively costing us an IP until we fix it), so I know they have an automated system for dumping individual attackers into a block list without interaction from us. This just seems like a power play to eliminate a server they don't particularly like.
That would be a nifty interpretation, however as far as I know you are governed by where you have physical presence. IE If you buy something legal in china, that is illegal in the US, and you live in the US, you've still broken the law. It would be different if you physically go to China (as you are no longer located in the united states).
This has been shown as an issue in the past where America wants someone sent here on extradition for breaking US law over the internet, but the host country refuses as they did not break any laws in their home country.
go ahead and think that, but I never had issues with 95 beyond rigging it up so I could use the upgrade edition to install instead of the full edition. Manually creating empty files with the appropriate names and folder structure allowed you to trick it into thinking you had windows 3.11 and it would then delete them and install as a full version. But keep your illusion I'm sure it feels good to assume everything about people.
If it crashed continually, then only retards would have been buying software that reboots infinitely. This is my point, that it didn't continually reboot, and people bought it because it had some obvious benefits. As for questioning my age, I certainly have used DOS as well as all versions of windows since 3.1. If you want to blame someone for 9x crashing then perhaps you should blame the fucking dumbasses who kept buying it and programming for it instead of supporting something else.:)
Really? Here I thought you would say its because I'm a fag. Usually your kind moves on to this one next. As for your comments, most of us didn't have issues with 9x crashing all the time. Perhaps if you didn't suck at programming your drivers wouldn't cause this issue? Wait, I'm sorry, you have a low ID tag on a website which means you are smarter...
I never said he did either:) Nor did I say anything else like that. I simply opened the door to point out another fallacy (that of Gore not having to say he didn't ever claim he invented the internet).
You apparently missed the entire point there. Perhaps you should be more perceptive? Oh yes, Go Fuck Yourself.
Actually its a chicken before the egg issue if you want to go that route with it. The hardware would have never gained substantial footing without DOS, and DOS wouldn't have become a well known and accepted tool without IBM. Mutual interests at heart here were obvious. What wasn't obvious (to IBM) was the value of software. This is why Microsoft ( at least in my view) brought it to the home. They knew the software mattered, because without it, they just had another atari.
Actually what he said is correct, because he never said anything about manufacturing hardware, he said they are the largest software company on earth. Also, manufacturing cheap computers didn't bring computing to the home user, it brought it to the basement programmers who helped develop the software that microsoft bought. Then, Microsoft took that purchased software and stuck it in PCs, bringing it to the home users. Just like he said.
Windows crashing constantly is yet another myth. As well, Microsoft shouldn't be forced to state they didn't invent the internet as it happens to be fairly obvious. In fact I've never met anyone who thought they did (insert Al Gore reference). You can demonize Microsoft if you want to but the reason people think Microsoft did it first and did it best is because everyone else who faded into the history books of vague references and foot notes did so because they failed. They failed to market themselves, or they failed to meet volume, or they simply failed to find financial backing. In the end, Microsoft makes things easy for people to use and makes tools that people like because they do all of those things VERY well. If someone comes up with a great idea that Microsoft finds amazing, they buy it and run with it. There isn't anything wrong with that, hell every company on earth does this (including Apple, IBM, etc).
Demonizing a company for having business savvy owners is pointless. As well, saying it isn't easy to use is not only an opinion, but also hard to back up these days. I haven't yet found anything I wanted to use that wasn't plug and play, and not a single person I've made computers for has ever had an issue "installing" their own new hardware and getting it to work with windows.
*Installing is in quotes because the idea of calling a USB device "installed" drives me nuts. Linux however, not so accepting of the USB goodness...
Point to point within the internal network (you know, the one he never said was wireless.) SNR is always an issue with any kind of transmission, not just microwave. BUT, I was talking about the internal network in the building where the OP claims the issue likely resides.
With the network being as questionable as stated, I can only wonder what part of the network is causing it to be unreliable. Usually if the entire network as issues then you are probably talking about everything in the office coming back to a switch panel and a faulty switch. If only certain transfers from point to point are commonly failing then you probably have wiring issues. In either a hardware or medium case, you need to be fixing the network instead of finding workarounds. Working with the network Admin for the facility to detect the source of the issue should be a two - three hour task at most. Save yourself time in the future and spend the bulk time now to fix the real problem.
Nobody is overlooking it. What we know however is that these suits will be ready and in the field before AI is good enough to replace them. We already have units that are being tested and some are pretty close to field worthy. The reason we ignore AI is because at the moment no AI or remote camera system can equal a highly trained field operative.
The exo-skeletal combat suit will happen, just not in the way people want it to. Units like this would be of great use for land forces during occupation or high intensity situations where robots are not suited to be due to the mixed set of combatants and non-combatants that are common to urban warfare. Special Forces will most likely some day have breach and patrol squads of these for specialized purposes like breach and sweep missions or scout and intercept. While robots are good at killing, they'll likely never be suited for situations where death isn't the sole option. Mixed situations like this is where mobile suits like this would excel. I don't ever see the application of giant robot suits the size of cities mind you, but small combat suits that allow a man to get in and out of buildings without taking the roof off (or perhaps breaching the roof as an option?) would be a boon for the military (which is why they are developing them!)
nature would have tried it egh? Like, purposely? Sounds like planning to me... However since you mentioned reading the article, you seem to have glazed over this little comment the man seem to know so well made.
Its not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. Its a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didnt happen in the ancient world.
No, intelligent design does not require god. ID requires that an intelligent being of some kind, even a giant spaghetti monster if it could, designed everything. ID does not equate to God, God equates to ID. Big difference.
This is like saying "Scientists find a way of creating diamonds from carbon." Its easy to say you figured out how to do something when you get to guess what the materials really are in the first place. They don't really know what "primordial soup" would have been. They just said "hey, we can make RNA out of this random shit we figured would be laying around... using this expensive equipment and a method that requires accurate timing and purification and controls."
don't get me wrong, I'm willing to look at "random accident" as a method for the creation of life, but this article is bullshit. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go write an article showing that a copper mine with sand in it can evolve into a circuit board for a car stereo with a few simple steps and a bunch of human intervention...
So after reading the article, here is what I gathered:
1) A bunch of scientists who know what RNA looks like found a complex way or mixing and meshing chemicals together and purifying the process then repeating until they artificially created RNA.
2) They admit it wouldn't have worked in nature on its own...
3) People suddenly claim it disproves ID. Hell, all they DID was PROVE ID. The whole fucking article says "we, a bunch of intelligent people, used advanced chemistry to make something that we admit wouldn't have occurred on its own." That IS ID.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually having greater punishment through law tends to make the more violent crimes even more violent. If a man is going to do 25 years for assault with a deadly weapon (gun, knife, kebob) he is more likely to just murder you and save himself a witness.
A good combo for space shuttles and stations.
It might seem that way, but there is really no better way. If you do nothing then you are screwed. If you do anything then someone will complain or find fault. The system we use is highly effective and we haven't had issues with it in the many years we've used it.
While the hypothetical issue people always use is one of the 11 year old knowing more than the 40 year old who runs a real shop does and yet charges excessive amounts seems to show an issue; the reality is that commonly the 11 year old got the virus downloading porn or MSN smiley packs from his friends, and the mother spends $50-$100 at a local shop getting it taken care of by a pro who notifies her of the issue (which she then punishes the child for). We all know the stories of the retarded shop tech who can't ID his own ass despite the zipcode the state has assigned it, but the reality is that most people who own a shop and charge reasonable rates (or even high rates) can do so because they are experienced and have good word of mouth business.
Not a bad idea actually... though many users can't seem to work a remote control properly, so using lynx is likely out of the question.
The third offense is really different depending on the circumstances. We'll usually take a more involved and personal approach to these, but if we don't get it resolved after this point we have no choice but to ask them to either control their systems or find other services. We send a tech out to their house to check for open wifi, extra PCs that they didn't clean, etc. I've only ever seen us terminate access for one person ever, and they refused to secure their Wifi or work with us at all to resolve the issue.
First off, I think you read too far into some of my statements and this is possibly upsetting you a bit too much. I've been in this business for a while now, and believe me when I say that the last thing I want is to alienate my customers; in fact unlike many ISPs we don't even care if you are hosting a server from your home; we merely request (quite reasonably) that if your PC becomes infected you clean it for the safety of our other customers.
If you do on-site service then I'm certain you understand that whatever you have on your PC is your responsibility and thus making you liable for damages caused to others. By requesting our customers have their PC checked and cleaned/repaired by a professional on the SECOND (not first) offense we are attempting to help both the user (who may have been ignorant of the trouble being caused) and everyone else. If you noticed, I didn't state that we sniff packets or persecute them; we merely require that they be responsible users when accessing our network. Out of the possible hundred times I've done this not a single time did a user get angry; quite the contrary actually. I receive thank you letters (twice actually) or emails (a few) that they are happy we're looking out for them. As a service we also offer free antivirus to our customers upon request (though I usually suggest downloading something like Avast so they don't have to deal with licenses through us).
If you find our tactics heavy handed or obtrusive then I think you might have a skewed and excessively open expectation of what should be allowed on a network. In the end, no matter what people say about "net neutrality" and carrier immunity ISPs will still blackhole each other for not controlling their user base when it comes to attacks. I think the proactive approach we take with our customers is more personal and effective than other options out there.
This is the very reason at the ISP I work for we cut our user's access to the net once we discover they are spamming/botting/flooding anyone for any reason. We block them off, mark their account, and notify them by phone of why they lost internet access. Once they notify us they've had their PC cleaned we allow them access again. If they do it again though (and we monitor their bandwidth usage for two weeks to be sure they didn't miss something) we require them to bring in a receipt showing they had their PC cleaned by professionals and that they have antivirus before turning them on again. AT&T (if they really are attempting to protect them... which is likely BS) made the poor choice. We receive notification from AT&T when our customers SPAM or flood anyone about how they'll blackhole their IP if we don't stop them (effectively costing us an IP until we fix it), so I know they have an automated system for dumping individual attackers into a block list without interaction from us. This just seems like a power play to eliminate a server they don't particularly like.
That would be a nifty interpretation, however as far as I know you are governed by where you have physical presence. IE If you buy something legal in china, that is illegal in the US, and you live in the US, you've still broken the law. It would be different if you physically go to China (as you are no longer located in the united states). This has been shown as an issue in the past where America wants someone sent here on extradition for breaking US law over the internet, but the host country refuses as they did not break any laws in their home country.
go ahead and think that, but I never had issues with 95 beyond rigging it up so I could use the upgrade edition to install instead of the full edition. Manually creating empty files with the appropriate names and folder structure allowed you to trick it into thinking you had windows 3.11 and it would then delete them and install as a full version. But keep your illusion I'm sure it feels good to assume everything about people.
If it crashed continually, then only retards would have been buying software that reboots infinitely. This is my point, that it didn't continually reboot, and people bought it because it had some obvious benefits. As for questioning my age, I certainly have used DOS as well as all versions of windows since 3.1. If you want to blame someone for 9x crashing then perhaps you should blame the fucking dumbasses who kept buying it and programming for it instead of supporting something else. :)
Really? Here I thought you would say its because I'm a fag. Usually your kind moves on to this one next. As for your comments, most of us didn't have issues with 9x crashing all the time. Perhaps if you didn't suck at programming your drivers wouldn't cause this issue? Wait, I'm sorry, you have a low ID tag on a website which means you are smarter...
I never said he did either :) Nor did I say anything else like that. I simply opened the door to point out another fallacy (that of Gore not having to say he didn't ever claim he invented the internet).
You apparently missed the entire point there. Perhaps you should be more perceptive? Oh yes, Go Fuck Yourself.
Compare and contrast the number of digits in your SlashID with mine
I stopped reading after that line of bullshit.
Actually its a chicken before the egg issue if you want to go that route with it. The hardware would have never gained substantial footing without DOS, and DOS wouldn't have become a well known and accepted tool without IBM. Mutual interests at heart here were obvious. What wasn't obvious (to IBM) was the value of software. This is why Microsoft ( at least in my view) brought it to the home. They knew the software mattered, because without it, they just had another atari.
Actually what he said is correct, because he never said anything about manufacturing hardware, he said they are the largest software company on earth. Also, manufacturing cheap computers didn't bring computing to the home user, it brought it to the basement programmers who helped develop the software that microsoft bought. Then, Microsoft took that purchased software and stuck it in PCs, bringing it to the home users. Just like he said.
Windows crashing constantly is yet another myth. As well, Microsoft shouldn't be forced to state they didn't invent the internet as it happens to be fairly obvious. In fact I've never met anyone who thought they did (insert Al Gore reference). You can demonize Microsoft if you want to but the reason people think Microsoft did it first and did it best is because everyone else who faded into the history books of vague references and foot notes did so because they failed. They failed to market themselves, or they failed to meet volume, or they simply failed to find financial backing. In the end, Microsoft makes things easy for people to use and makes tools that people like because they do all of those things VERY well. If someone comes up with a great idea that Microsoft finds amazing, they buy it and run with it. There isn't anything wrong with that, hell every company on earth does this (including Apple, IBM, etc). Demonizing a company for having business savvy owners is pointless. As well, saying it isn't easy to use is not only an opinion, but also hard to back up these days. I haven't yet found anything I wanted to use that wasn't plug and play, and not a single person I've made computers for has ever had an issue "installing" their own new hardware and getting it to work with windows. *Installing is in quotes because the idea of calling a USB device "installed" drives me nuts. Linux however, not so accepting of the USB goodness...
No, but millions of them could be Wong.
Point to point within the internal network (you know, the one he never said was wireless.) SNR is always an issue with any kind of transmission, not just microwave. BUT, I was talking about the internal network in the building where the OP claims the issue likely resides.
With the network being as questionable as stated, I can only wonder what part of the network is causing it to be unreliable. Usually if the entire network as issues then you are probably talking about everything in the office coming back to a switch panel and a faulty switch. If only certain transfers from point to point are commonly failing then you probably have wiring issues. In either a hardware or medium case, you need to be fixing the network instead of finding workarounds. Working with the network Admin for the facility to detect the source of the issue should be a two - three hour task at most. Save yourself time in the future and spend the bulk time now to fix the real problem.
Nobody is overlooking it. What we know however is that these suits will be ready and in the field before AI is good enough to replace them. We already have units that are being tested and some are pretty close to field worthy. The reason we ignore AI is because at the moment no AI or remote camera system can equal a highly trained field operative.
The exo-skeletal combat suit will happen, just not in the way people want it to. Units like this would be of great use for land forces during occupation or high intensity situations where robots are not suited to be due to the mixed set of combatants and non-combatants that are common to urban warfare. Special Forces will most likely some day have breach and patrol squads of these for specialized purposes like breach and sweep missions or scout and intercept. While robots are good at killing, they'll likely never be suited for situations where death isn't the sole option. Mixed situations like this is where mobile suits like this would excel. I don't ever see the application of giant robot suits the size of cities mind you, but small combat suits that allow a man to get in and out of buildings without taking the roof off (or perhaps breaching the roof as an option?) would be a boon for the military (which is why they are developing them!)
Bullshit. If they had, they would have published by now. Shit or get off the pot sir, people need seats for better reasons than yours.
Its not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. Its a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didnt happen in the ancient world.
No, intelligent design does not require god. ID requires that an intelligent being of some kind, even a giant spaghetti monster if it could, designed everything. ID does not equate to God, God equates to ID. Big difference.
This is like saying "Scientists find a way of creating diamonds from carbon." Its easy to say you figured out how to do something when you get to guess what the materials really are in the first place. They don't really know what "primordial soup" would have been. They just said "hey, we can make RNA out of this random shit we figured would be laying around... using this expensive equipment and a method that requires accurate timing and purification and controls."
don't get me wrong, I'm willing to look at "random accident" as a method for the creation of life, but this article is bullshit. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go write an article showing that a copper mine with sand in it can evolve into a circuit board for a car stereo with a few simple steps and a bunch of human intervention...
So after reading the article, here is what I gathered:
1) A bunch of scientists who know what RNA looks like found a complex way or mixing and meshing chemicals together and purifying the process then repeating until they artificially created RNA.
2) They admit it wouldn't have worked in nature on its own...
3) People suddenly claim it disproves ID. Hell, all they DID was PROVE ID. The whole fucking article says "we, a bunch of intelligent people, used advanced chemistry to make something that we admit wouldn't have occurred on its own." That IS ID.