1 - That tape was bad when written - verify at least some after write and you're fine.
This is not a solution unless you verify the tape in a different drive and maybe not even then. The second to the last time I used tape backups, the tapes verified fine yet none of them could be read later and when that happened, the drive STILL verified newly written tapes as good even though they were not.
The drive I used after that worked great for years and then became unsupported on the software side. The 4mm and 8mm drives I considered after that were demonstrably junk. I started using optical and hard drive backup after that.
Start doxxing the fuckers. Release their home addresses, phone numbers, baking information. release every mother fucking piece you can find on them, their families, their friends, their business partners.
And then attach a note identifying your "tracking brick" and start throwing it through their windows.
They might legally include a contract clause forbidding installation of your own WiFi hotspot. They certainly could then enforce the contract clause, which might involve a penalty, might ban them from doing business with them in the future, might even be able to eject them from the space.
The FCC decided this issue in 2006 when the Massachusetts Port Authority tried banning tenets, in this case Continental Airlines, from deploying WiFi. It is an unlicensed service so no WiFi operator is entitled to protection against harmful interference from other WiFi operators.
Notwithstanding [in spite of] contract terms to the contrary, the FCC has ruled that tenants are allowed to install their own WiFi networks within their own leased space.
Just like there are laws that prohibit actively jamming devices, which is what Marriott was doing.
As much as I dislike what Marriott was doing, I would not consider it jamming. They are using equipment that meets FCC part 15 regulations although in a rather hostile way by forging packets to deauthenticate other WiFi connections. That this even works is do to a design flaw in WiFi. Jamming would be interfering with the transmission itself.
I know I'll get hammered for saying I was in favor of what marroitt did but here me out. When I travel, I'm terrified of connecting to hotel networks.
An inexpensive VPN tunnel service or VPN tunnel connection to your machine solves this problem. I would not trust the hotel network significantly more than any untrusted network.
They only way I see them getting bitten is if Intel decides they really want a slice of the high end GPU market; ups their game on the design side AND allocates their 14nm facilities to GPUs in favor of cranking out more CPUs.
Intel does not need to worry about the high end GPU market which is discrete; increasing integration will eventually allow integrated GPUs to catch up to and outperform discrete GPUs at which point Intel will only be competing with AMD assuming that AMD still exists. Unless x86 is displaced by ARM, nVidia will not be a factor because they lack an x86 CPU so they have been diversifying away from the x86 GPU market.
During the same time period I tried to avoid Motorola's products because they had poor availability. Anything they produced which did not have another source was on allocation.
Like the other commenters said, AMD never had the lead in monopolistic behavior. The billions Intel spend to keep Dell and Gateway and others from using AMD processors was cheaper then the development and manufacturing costs to do the same.
The only thing AMD managed to accomplish was sinking Itanic as a replacement for X86.
Couldn't one write a program to detect Stingray presence by having a database of all possible cell tower IDs and matching the ID of the one to which you're connecting against that list?
Sure this could be done and public key encryption is just the thing needed for authentication of this kind. But since the phone companies work closely with law enforcement, they will not do it. They have nothing to gain from it.
The best which can be done is to use a third part application to tunnel through intermediates to the destination. It means adding another layer of complexity but it would be one that the telephone companies and law enforcement do not control.
The law is now so vast and complex that you're almost certainly a felon who hasn't been caught yet.
The law is so vast and complex, that law enforcement is not required to understand it when arresting you but you are expected to understand it because ignorance of the law is no excuse.
There's nothing wrong with parallel construction. If you did the crime, and a judge is convinced they would have gotten the evidence legally, you get convicted of the crime of which you are guilty. I don't have a problem with this. That's not what the 4th Amendment is for.
The problem with this is that because of how the exclusionary rule works, there is no remedy for violations of the 4th amendment where the evidence is not used. That makes all searches constitutional when parallel construction is used.
If there's anything that'll push forward legal restrictions on 3D printers/home CNC, it'll be assholes like this making a media push over how easy it is to make weapons and OMG THE CHILDREN.
BATFE has already starting to move forward on making home machining of a firearm unlawful without a federal firearms license. It is a small step from "the ATF now considers providing someone a pre-programmed CNC machine with fixtures in place as "manufacturing"" to 3D printing machines.
The thing is that most vector graphics didn't have that high of effective resolution. Sure, in theory the concept allows for infinite resolution, but the beam used to draw the picture had finite width, the positioning had finite bandwidth, and there was noise in the system (especially clear in this case). The blurring that gives it a clean, smooth look does take quite a bit of resolution on a raster display to emulate, but it is not because the vector display was particularly high resolution. Just like emulating the blurring of a CRT on a crisper LCD can't be done at the same resolution, but the value of that blurring is up to subjective tastes...
The oscilloscope may not be in very good shape; maybe the CRT is gassy. I would expect much sharper and brighter lines from a Hitachi V-422 since it uses 10 kilovolts of post deflection acceleration although it is only a 40 MHz oscilloscope. It is also possible that that blurred traces are an artifact generated from the sound card itself because of something like a ground loop.
The wiggling shown is an artifact of the sound card outputs which suffer from non-linear group delay and low bandwidth compared to even a slow oscilloscope in X-Y mode. Most oscilloscopes have an X bandwidth in the range of 1 to 2 MHz (500 kHz on the Hitachi shown) which is 50 to 100 times higher than a sound card can usually produce. Some are more than an order of magnitude faster then that. Oscilloscope vector graphic drivers generally have bandwidths in the 1 MHz range although faster is possible.
As far as spot size, oscilloscope CRTs have an advantage over CRTs intended for other applications because of high acceleration voltages which yields smaller spot sizes. My oldest DSO generates a 10 bit or 1024x1024 display on its 10cm x 8cm CRT. Later similar models were lower resolution but not because of CRT limitations.
The irony is that it's only taken 40+ years to get to display resolutions for raster graphics to approximate vector graphics.
That is about right given that my oldest digital storage oscilloscope was first produced in 1981 and has a 10 bit display for 1024x1024 in a 5:4 format of 10 cm x 8cm which yields 260x325 DPI. Oscilloscope CRTs however are a little unusual in that they use very high acceleration voltages to produce bright traces and this has a side effect of giving them a smaller spot size although it does create a halo from secondary emission which lowers contrast. Tektronix used LCD shutters to produce color displays with monochrome CRTs because of the higher resolution this provided over a color CRT.
We have only just recently commercially achieved that kind of resolution and not in full size displays. When told about the newest DSOs which now have higher resolution displays, I chuckle and smile.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a solution unless you verify the tape in a different drive and maybe not even then. The second to the last time I used tape backups, the tapes verified fine yet none of them could be read later and when that happened, the drive STILL verified newly written tapes as good even though they were not.
The drive I used after that worked great for years and then became unsupported on the software side. The 4mm and 8mm drives I considered after that were demonstrably junk. I started using optical and hard drive backup after that.
And then attach a note identifying your "tracking brick" and start throwing it through their windows.
I have used a VPN to my home machine to avoid these kinds of issues but my home ISP could always start doing the same thing.
The FCC decided this issue in 2006 when the Massachusetts Port Authority tried banning tenets, in this case Continental Airlines, from deploying WiFi. It is an unlicensed service so no WiFi operator is entitled to protection against harmful interference from other WiFi operators.
Notwithstanding [in spite of] contract terms to the contrary, the FCC has ruled that tenants are allowed to install their own WiFi networks within their own leased space.
http://www.ibls.com/internet_l...
As much as I dislike what Marriott was doing, I would not consider it jamming. They are using equipment that meets FCC part 15 regulations although in a rather hostile way by forging packets to deauthenticate other WiFi connections. That this even works is do to a design flaw in WiFi. Jamming would be interfering with the transmission itself.
An inexpensive VPN tunnel service or VPN tunnel connection to your machine solves this problem. I would not trust the hotel network significantly more than any untrusted network.
I understand the problem with TCP but how do they reset an OpenVPN tunnel over UDP?
The discrete GPU market is not large enough to interest Intel and it is getting smaller as integrated GPUs gain performance.
Intel does not need to worry about the high end GPU market which is discrete; increasing integration will eventually allow integrated GPUs to catch up to and outperform discrete GPUs at which point Intel will only be competing with AMD assuming that AMD still exists. Unless x86 is displaced by ARM, nVidia will not be a factor because they lack an x86 CPU so they have been diversifying away from the x86 GPU market.
Which is just another cost.
If there were jobs here calling for that skill at an appropriate wage and if the infrastructure existed to support that skill.
Intel does fab other company's chips now but they are hardly going to do so for companies which directly compete with them.
Motorola did this with other lower profile products as well. Their availability was always questionable.
During the same time period I tried to avoid Motorola's products because they had poor availability. Anything they produced which did not have another source was on allocation.
Like the other commenters said, AMD never had the lead in monopolistic behavior. The billions Intel spend to keep Dell and Gateway and others from using AMD processors was cheaper then the development and manufacturing costs to do the same.
The only thing AMD managed to accomplish was sinking Itanic as a replacement for X86.
Sure this could be done and public key encryption is just the thing needed for authentication of this kind. But since the phone companies work closely with law enforcement, they will not do it. They have nothing to gain from it.
The best which can be done is to use a third part application to tunnel through intermediates to the destination. It means adding another layer of complexity but it would be one that the telephone companies and law enforcement do not control.
The law is so vast and complex, that law enforcement is not required to understand it when arresting you but you are expected to understand it because ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Since there is no remedy when they use parallel construction, it is not unconstitutional.
The problem with this is that because of how the exclusionary rule works, there is no remedy for violations of the 4th amendment where the evidence is not used. That makes all searches constitutional when parallel construction is used.
BATFE is already moving on this front to make it unlawful. They have started by going after the gun build parties which use CNC machines.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunf...
BATFE has already starting to move forward on making home machining of a firearm unlawful without a federal firearms license. It is a small step from "the ATF now considers providing someone a pre-programmed CNC machine with fixtures in place as "manufacturing"" to 3D printing machines.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunf...
The photo shows that Gogo issued the fake certificate which is why the browser flagged it.
https://twitter.com/__apf__/st...
My favorite were the Apple ][ floppy drives which made a very distinctive shuck-shuck-shuck noise.
The current Tektronix 5000 series is Windows 7.
The oscilloscope may not be in very good shape; maybe the CRT is gassy. I would expect much sharper and brighter lines from a Hitachi V-422 since it uses 10 kilovolts of post deflection acceleration although it is only a 40 MHz oscilloscope. It is also possible that that blurred traces are an artifact generated from the sound card itself because of something like a ground loop.
The wiggling shown is an artifact of the sound card outputs which suffer from non-linear group delay and low bandwidth compared to even a slow oscilloscope in X-Y mode. Most oscilloscopes have an X bandwidth in the range of 1 to 2 MHz (500 kHz on the Hitachi shown) which is 50 to 100 times higher than a sound card can usually produce. Some are more than an order of magnitude faster then that. Oscilloscope vector graphic drivers generally have bandwidths in the 1 MHz range although faster is possible.
As far as spot size, oscilloscope CRTs have an advantage over CRTs intended for other applications because of high acceleration voltages which yields smaller spot sizes. My oldest DSO generates a 10 bit or 1024x1024 display on its 10cm x 8cm CRT. Later similar models were lower resolution but not because of CRT limitations.
That is about right given that my oldest digital storage oscilloscope was first produced in 1981 and has a 10 bit display for 1024x1024 in a 5:4 format of 10 cm x 8cm which yields 260x325 DPI. Oscilloscope CRTs however are a little unusual in that they use very high acceleration voltages to produce bright traces and this has a side effect of giving them a smaller spot size although it does create a halo from secondary emission which lowers contrast. Tektronix used LCD shutters to produce color displays with monochrome CRTs because of the higher resolution this provided over a color CRT.
We have only just recently commercially achieved that kind of resolution and not in full size displays. When told about the newest DSOs which now have higher resolution displays, I chuckle and smile.