They would have even less money or a lack of existence if they had protected the 2nd Amendment as well; when the ACLU was founded, one of the major monetary contributors made that stipulation. They continue to support the collective interpretation undermining their own position on individual rights belonging to "people".
I was thinking something like Open Firmware but since they would have to use JAVA or whatever Google has instead of Forth, it will not work. Torvalds has harped on this issue as well.
If only there was some kind of abstraction layer so that the OS could be upgraded to add features, remove bugs, and fix exploits without involving the original manufacturer.
There is no way for the ISP to determine which received UDP packets were solicited so you get charged for all of them. I believe this applies to some other stateless protocols like GRE. There is no other way to do it. I am surprised there have been no reports of people getting hit with huge bills do to this but my guess is that it has already happened but not been identified.
I am aware of the differences. My point is that the FCC is enforcing rules against non-interference with WiFi which it is not enforcing against cellular.
The chairman is so on the side of consumers, that he set up a rigged network neutrality complaint procedure. The ISP has a plethora of excuses that they can use for blocking or throttling content.
Sure, metered service seems like a great idea until someone sends you a boatload of unsolicited UDP packets and runs your meter sky high. And the teleco can make money off of it!
Yes, lets prosecute people for crimes they didn't commit.
BTW, the FBI would like to have a chat with you, Mr Coward is it? Something about the Lindberg Baby and JFK assassinations?
The FBI does this all the time. Interrogate someone until they say something that does not agree with what the interrogators believe and charge them with lying to a federal officer.
Or it was not a honey pot for foreign intelligence services to enjoy.
Like what if she kept a diary and routinely wrote down in detail what she had done and learned during the day while someone else photographed the pages for a foreign intelligence service? Any counter intelligence leak would at most point to her keeping a secret diary and someone else taking advantage of it. Historically how friendly has she been with the Russians with that uranium thing and the Chinese?
I do not believe any of the above is true about her and just present it as a hypothetical. I have plenty of other reasons to dislike her and not support her.
No. He will commit suicide with 3 shots to the back of the head, roll around on the carpet, die in a park under the jurisdiction of the agency least able to investigate while leaving no blood there, and then his office and home and whatnot will be ransacked for national security purposes.
They could let the owner block international calls or at least mark them as international but why would the carrier care? They make money from unsolicited calls.
Do the Stingray devices have a jam mode? It would be trivial to include it.
They do not need to jam in the traditional RF sense but since they are capable of impersonating a cell tower, all they have to do is accept calls and not forward them. The "legal" WiFi jammers do this yet the FCC went after them.
It is not enough that someone's legal rights are infringed.... In order to be heard in court, you actually have to have evidence that not only were YOU personally and directly affected, BUT a Real material financial loss or other damage resulted.
Which is another way to say that the innocent have no civil rights.
I would add to this that the FCC does apparently regulate the use of WiFi devices which obey all regulations as far as RF emissions but spoof or deauthenticate other WiFi devices. Stingrays do the same thing for cell phones.
So what does the use of WiFi devices which are already approved by the FCC fall under when they are used to spoof or deauthenticate other WiFi devices?
I do not know why they would have to be precisely matched but semiconductor junctions have more excess noise and less stringent requirements for amplification and measuring the differential noise while rejecting external common mode influences applies just as well to them. With a resistance based noise source, you have to be careful that you are not actually measuring the voltage or current noise of the amplifier and if you are going to do that, then you do not need the resistance based source.
What I mean is that the ISP's metering records outgoing and *incoming* packets whether solicited or not. So for every 50GB of UDP traffic someone sends you which you cannot block, you have to pay AT&T $10.
The situation seems to be setup to support an existing despicable behavior in court where agencies like the FBI and especially BATFE testify that their records are 100% accurate. This continues even though revealed agency memos show that they know this is not the case and it is just another way they lie to the courts and the courts accept it.
Slashdot Mirror
They would have even less money or a lack of existence if they had protected the 2nd Amendment as well; when the ACLU was founded, one of the major monetary contributors made that stipulation. They continue to support the collective interpretation undermining their own position on individual rights belonging to "people".
I was thinking something like Open Firmware but since they would have to use JAVA or whatever Google has instead of Forth, it will not work. Torvalds has harped on this issue as well.
If only there was some kind of abstraction layer so that the OS could be upgraded to add features, remove bugs, and fix exploits without involving the original manufacturer.
There is no way for the ISP to determine which received UDP packets were solicited so you get charged for all of them. I believe this applies to some other stateless protocols like GRE. There is no other way to do it. I am surprised there have been no reports of people getting hit with huge bills do to this but my guess is that it has already happened but not been identified.
I am aware of the differences. My point is that the FCC is enforcing rules against non-interference with WiFi which it is not enforcing against cellular.
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
Note that they were blocking WiFi via interception or deauthentication and not jamming in the sense of capturing the receiver using a stronger signal.
The chairman is so on the side of consumers, that he set up a rigged network neutrality complaint procedure. The ISP has a plethora of excuses that they can use for blocking or throttling content.
You mean like the candidates who get kicked out of the early debates by the political committees which change the rules?
Sure, metered service seems like a great idea until someone sends you a boatload of unsolicited UDP packets and runs your meter sky high. And the teleco can make money off of it!
The FBI does this all the time. Interrogate someone until they say something that does not agree with what the interrogators believe and charge them with lying to a federal officer.
Or it was not a honey pot for foreign intelligence services to enjoy.
Like what if she kept a diary and routinely wrote down in detail what she had done and learned during the day while someone else photographed the pages for a foreign intelligence service? Any counter intelligence leak would at most point to her keeping a secret diary and someone else taking advantage of it. Historically how friendly has she been with the Russians with that uranium thing and the Chinese?
I do not believe any of the above is true about her and just present it as a hypothetical. I have plenty of other reasons to dislike her and not support her.
No. He will commit suicide with 3 shots to the back of the head, roll around on the carpet, die in a park under the jurisdiction of the agency least able to investigate while leaving no blood there, and then his office and home and whatnot will be ransacked for national security purposes.
Or give him a Nobel Peace Prize. That is what they did last time.
They could let the owner block international calls or at least mark them as international but why would the carrier care? They make money from unsolicited calls.
Law enforcement does not need jammers although they have them; they have the power to shut down cell phone service as needed.
They do not need to jam in the traditional RF sense but since they are capable of impersonating a cell tower, all they have to do is accept calls and not forward them. The "legal" WiFi jammers do this yet the FCC went after them.
Which is another way to say that the innocent have no civil rights.
I would add to this that the FCC does apparently regulate the use of WiFi devices which obey all regulations as far as RF emissions but spoof or deauthenticate other WiFi devices. Stingrays do the same thing for cell phones.
So what does the use of WiFi devices which are already approved by the FCC fall under when they are used to spoof or deauthenticate other WiFi devices?
Cryptography can be used to generate shared random numbers for multiple parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I do not know why they would have to be precisely matched but semiconductor junctions have more excess noise and less stringent requirements for amplification and measuring the differential noise while rejecting external common mode influences applies just as well to them. With a resistance based noise source, you have to be careful that you are not actually measuring the voltage or current noise of the amplifier and if you are going to do that, then you do not need the resistance based source.
So the workers displaced by automation can work for law enforcement, the courts, and the prisons instead.
What I mean is that the ISP's metering records outgoing and *incoming* packets whether solicited or not. So for every 50GB of UDP traffic someone sends you which you cannot block, you have to pay AT&T $10.
It is also less then 1 Windows reinstall if I include my Steam games.
Based on his description of the situation, why would you think any of those things would work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The situation seems to be setup to support an existing despicable behavior in court where agencies like the FBI and especially BATFE testify that their records are 100% accurate. This continues even though revealed agency memos show that they know this is not the case and it is just another way they lie to the courts and the courts accept it.