This is exactly the situation I'm in with SBC. I call the Tech Support department, and and ask if they support IPv6, and they say they don't know, and forward me to Sales, who say, "I've never heard of that, and I've been doing Sales here for a while, so I'm pretty sure we don't support it." Seemingly no likelyhood that they placed a tick mark next to "Customers asking for IPv6."
E-mail was worse: they simply never replied. But that's pretty typical of SBC regardless of the question.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you trolling? Or just because my link layer is DSL + ATM, I'm somehow not worthy of IPv6? Could you please clarify your comment a bit?
I'm mostly there. My network and systems are all dual IPv4 and IPv6. The problem I've been running up against is that there are no DSL or small-office/home-office-type providers in my area that support IPv6! Most of the people I speak to at my current ISP (SBC) don't even know what it is (had to call them, my 4 or 5 e-mails about it have all gone totally unanswered), and finally when I get ahold of someone in the "emerging products" group, they say they have no idea if/when it will ever be available. I can't even sign up to help test it.
So for now I'm stuck working through a tunnel broker with terrible latency. Basically, I'm still doing everything with IPv4 that's not on the LAN.
Just pick up a frequency counter from Radio Shack and sweep for them yourself.
Re:available bandwidth?
on
Hamvention
·
· Score: 1
If you have a DSP handy, CW is not the most efficient digital mode for you.
But I was referring to the human factor here. If all you're wanting to do is plug your computer into a radio and let it do all of the work, you might as well just stick with your Internet account.
Nobody has a DSP chip built into their brain. CW is still the best QRP modulation for human-human contacts.
Re:available bandwidth?
on
Hamvention
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I don't know that I would even consider it legacy. If you're trying to reach a station that's really far away, complex modulations are easily lost in the noise. Some times CW is the only way you can get a signal out at an appreciable distance.
In addition, it's the "lowest common denominator" for station identifications, making it useful if you're listening to a signal that identifies itself with morse.
There's a middle ground as well: set up a host named 'wpad' on your domain, put a web server on it, and have the web server serve up a/wpad.dat file containing JavaScript defining proxy definitions (use Google for details on proxy autoconfiguration). Many browsers (well, IE is all I'm sure of) will try to load http://wpad/wpad.dat to set up their proxy definitions when the browser is started up. They are free to turn this off or explicitly define their own proxy server if they want, but the fact that this is on by default is kind of nifty for these types of setups.
Since when does the FBI collect trash as evidence based on the recommendation of a random neighbor? Or is this a special exception since it contained, huge shock, Arabic writing?
They didn't. They collected papers given by a concerned resident. They weren't rooting around in the building's trash, the resident was. Not all of the documents were in Arabic. He/she probably couldn't read Arabic, but saw something in the non-Arabic works that was frightening, prompting the resident to grab everything. The description looked benign enough to me (assuming I can't read Arabic), but was apparently worrysome to someone else (perhaps taking into account the changes in Hawash's behavior). I'm not trying to justify the act, just trying to suggest ways it might have appeared reasonable to someone at the time.
The second neighbor, on the other hand, called the FBI because.. why?
I agree that the stated information doesn't seem to justify a call, but it's possible the call was prompted based on some other concern that isn't documented here, and that all they're putting in the affidavit are certain facts immediately relevant to the affidavit. It's possible some evidence will be withheld until trial.
But that's just a guess/assumption, but it seems more likely than some random resident calling the FBI to report the things documented there. That would be a bit weird. (But hey, this is America...)
If it's the model 2345, then it's defective. Take it back and get it replaced. Your user guide documents the power on/off functionality on the first page of chapter 1.
The only Kyocera model that I know of that has Indiglo lighting is the model 2345. To turn it off, press and hold the 'end' button. Hit the same button again to turn it back on.
There are also *plenty* of documented cases where some gadget or another has interfered with aircraft navigational systems.
Clarification is needed here because people see the word "interfere" and see pictures of scrambled GPS maps, compass needles spinning, etc.
Unless the RF interference is exceptionally clever, it basically boils down to additional noise alongside your signal, or a lower signal-to-noise ratio. This means GPS receivers might have a harder time finding satellites or your ability to hear a nearby navigational beacon is diminished. It does not imply that your equipment will be receiving misleading information (e.g. GPS telling you you're on a different heading, or a navigation beacon appearing 30 degrees away from where it really is). It should be obvious in all cases when your equipment is experiencing interference, unless you're using really really bad/cheap equipment.
I am also a certificated pilot training for my instrument rating, and you can bet I am not going to allow my future passenger(s) to run their CD walkmans
And it's this kind of paranoia that really saddens me. You probably heard scary stories from your own flight instructors and are just passing that FUD on to those reading Slashdot.
As the pilot, you're certainly the master of your own vessel, and I'd rather have a pilot that's comfortable with his flying than one that's nervous about a device I might be trying to use, so I'm not going to try and challenge this decision. I do believe that your concern is unfounded, though.
It is entirely possible that data transmitted from your cell phone or wifi card could be interpreted as instructions for the nav, comm, and control systems. It is *extremely* unlikely, but possible.
This is about as likely as me sending an SMS message with my cell phone and having the same message appear in my web browser as I'm loading a web page, magically injected into the network's data stream.
Lots of things are "possible", but are still effectively impossible. This is one of those things. Some "dumb" analog signals might be affected, but none of the high-level systems would be misled by bogus data like this.
Electronics will, at best, degrade or inject noise into a signal. Unless you're using some really brain-dead modulation and encoding schemes, this degradation will be immediately detectable as such. You shouldn't be relying on digital data over an analog medium without some form of data consistency checks, and I would be extremely surprised if modern avionics were designed without these checks.
Note that this could still send you off course, but that'd still require a number of factors:
interference beyond usability of GPS signals
interference with the network of navigational beacons on the ground, each operating on their own frequencies, making them unusable
interference with the pilots, impacting their ability to fly the plane according to visual flight rules after noticing that GPS and navigation beacons are no longer there
Though I will concede that some "dumb" sensors, that provide simple analog inputs to a more intelligent device that interprets and aggregates the data, might be more sensitive to interference, and yah, I can see how you might be able to affect the signal for these sensors, but the impact this interference will have is going to be very negligible and sanity checks with other sensors are going to make up for one that's giving faulty data. There's also a margin of error built into these readings to accomodate potential interference.
You're picking nits. There's the radio also. If you intend to listen to a work several times, and your local radio station isn't giving it any air play, and the preview isn't sufficient, you just need to buy it or forget about it. This is no different than the way things are done traditionally.
Because the service allows for free previews? This is explained on the site and in the article summary.
Please try to actually understand something by reading the article before you take up a position against it. You come across as very closed-minded when you're very vocal against something like this even though you don't seem to know anything about it.
mine blows a breeze at me from 15 feet away... Can I feel air moving? Yes.
I highly doubt this. I used to own an Ionic Breeze and while I could detect the very slight movement of air around the device, there's no way in hell you're going to say that the thing puts out a breeze at 15 feet.
Again, I disagree with the other poster in that the Ionic Breeze does move air, but it's nearly imperceptible. It is sufficient to scrub most of the air in a room over the course of a few days (maybe 24 hours or less for a smaller room), but I'd be really skeptical of someone claiming that it works faster than that.
I realize you're taking the parent post a little personally, and you're probably exaggerating to try and make your point better, but try not to go so overboard.
One thing you should really be aware of: in most larger buildings, ventilation is a major thing. In a school especially, the air in a given classroom is being exchanged completely fairly frequently. In the case of the Ionic Breeze, by itself, its ability to circulate air is incredibly weak, so it relies on ambient circulation at least as much. And even then, it's highly unlikely that it would compete with the circulation abilities of your building's ventilation. It's like turning the heat on in the dead of winter with all of your doors and windows opened. It's literally trying to filter the air of the entire school.
You are most likely experiencing a placebo effect, or some other environmental difference in his room that just makes it feel better to you.
Though I may be wrong here. Maybe your school is really old, or maybe your teacher is using a freakin' huge Ionic Breeze. Obviously I don't know these things, but just be sure you're considering all of the possibilities here.
I too have used an Ionic Breeze and have replaced it with a true HEPA filter system. The difference is literally *visible* in the air and orders of magnitude better when you actually examine just the pre-filter for the HEPA system. The Ionic Breeze would certainly collect dust (and it was kind of nifty the way it worked), but it really wasn't very significant and it worked very slowly.
This has been rehashed a million times in this article. This is a free market economy. Feel free to go spend your $16 and grab an album in your Sam Goody.
Myself, I'll be spending anywhere from $1 to $5 per album of interest with this service, depending on which tracks of that CD I actually like. If there's a rare album that I actually enjoy in its entirety, I'll probably consider buying the CD instead.
Nobody is suggesting that this service will replace retail distribution of CD's. Each service has its benefits and weaknesses. Use whatever you prefer and what makes sense for the situation.
How is this a legal, fair use of a copyrighted work? Unless you're using the word "broadcast" when you mean to suggest you wish to stream the music to a receiver elsewhere in your home?
If more people were to use PGP and X.509 signatures, would we have this problem? In a PGP-style universe, if we only accepted e-mail from signatures that were trusted (even in a distant way), you could reasonably count on people not signing for someone else's signature if they thought that someone else was going to spam with it. And if they did it more than once, you could just blacklist the signer.
X.509 is a bit trickier, since the CA's aren't exactly picky about who they sell a certificate to. But there could always be a contractual provision in that when you sell someone a certificate, you have enough legal contact information that if they *are* using it to spam, the CA can go after them for mega-penalties.
You know, I wonder if you set up a web page or a posting somewhere for a free stress testing service. All you do is invite people to send an e-mail to your automated mailbox containing one or more URL's they'd like to see stress tested.
So you'll inevitably get spam, and that spam will contain URL's. Could this be a way to legally DoS a spammer?
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly the situation I'm in with SBC. I call the Tech Support department, and and ask if they support IPv6, and they say they don't know, and forward me to Sales, who say, "I've never heard of that, and I've been doing Sales here for a while, so I'm pretty sure we don't support it." Seemingly no likelyhood that they placed a tick mark next to "Customers asking for IPv6."
E-mail was worse: they simply never replied. But that's pretty typical of SBC regardless of the question.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you trolling? Or just because my link layer is DSL + ATM, I'm somehow not worthy of IPv6? Could you please clarify your comment a bit?
I'm mostly there. My network and systems are all dual IPv4 and IPv6. The problem I've been running up against is that there are no DSL or small-office/home-office-type providers in my area that support IPv6! Most of the people I speak to at my current ISP (SBC) don't even know what it is (had to call them, my 4 or 5 e-mails about it have all gone totally unanswered), and finally when I get ahold of someone in the "emerging products" group, they say they have no idea if/when it will ever be available. I can't even sign up to help test it.
So for now I'm stuck working through a tunnel broker with terrible latency. Basically, I'm still doing everything with IPv4 that's not on the LAN.
Just pick up a frequency counter from Radio Shack and sweep for them yourself.
If you have a DSP handy, CW is not the most efficient digital mode for you.
But I was referring to the human factor here. If all you're wanting to do is plug your computer into a radio and let it do all of the work, you might as well just stick with your Internet account.
Nobody has a DSP chip built into their brain. CW is still the best QRP modulation for human-human contacts.
I don't know that I would even consider it legacy. If you're trying to reach a station that's really far away, complex modulations are easily lost in the noise. Some times CW is the only way you can get a signal out at an appreciable distance.
In addition, it's the "lowest common denominator" for station identifications, making it useful if you're listening to a signal that identifies itself with morse.
There's a middle ground as well: set up a host named 'wpad' on your domain, put a web server on it, and have the web server serve up a /wpad.dat file containing JavaScript defining proxy definitions (use Google for details on proxy autoconfiguration). Many browsers (well, IE is all I'm sure of) will try to load http://wpad/wpad.dat to set up their proxy definitions when the browser is started up. They are free to turn this off or explicitly define their own proxy server if they want, but the fact that this is on by default is kind of nifty for these types of setups.
This is great advice. It may not seem like it at the time, but making a good impression on your principal is a great way to get into things like this.
Make your case, try not to act like a script kiddie, and they will generally *try* to help you get this in the works for you.
It makes a good impression on a principal when the students want to make appointments with you, and not the other way around.
Since when does the FBI collect trash as evidence based on the recommendation of a random neighbor? Or is this a special exception since it contained, huge shock, Arabic writing?
They didn't. They collected papers given by a concerned resident. They weren't rooting around in the building's trash, the resident was. Not all of the documents were in Arabic. He/she probably couldn't read Arabic, but saw something in the non-Arabic works that was frightening, prompting the resident to grab everything. The description looked benign enough to me (assuming I can't read Arabic), but was apparently worrysome to someone else (perhaps taking into account the changes in Hawash's behavior). I'm not trying to justify the act, just trying to suggest ways it might have appeared reasonable to someone at the time.
The second neighbor, on the other hand, called the FBI because.. why?
I agree that the stated information doesn't seem to justify a call, but it's possible the call was prompted based on some other concern that isn't documented here, and that all they're putting in the affidavit are certain facts immediately relevant to the affidavit. It's possible some evidence will be withheld until trial.
But that's just a guess/assumption, but it seems more likely than some random resident calling the FBI to report the things documented there. That would be a bit weird. (But hey, this is America...)
If it's the model 2345, then it's defective. Take it back and get it replaced. Your user guide documents the power on/off functionality on the first page of chapter 1.
The only Kyocera model that I know of that has Indiglo lighting is the model 2345. To turn it off, press and hold the 'end' button. Hit the same button again to turn it back on.
There are also *plenty* of documented cases where some gadget or another has interfered with aircraft navigational systems.
Clarification is needed here because people see the word "interfere" and see pictures of scrambled GPS maps, compass needles spinning, etc.
Unless the RF interference is exceptionally clever, it basically boils down to additional noise alongside your signal, or a lower signal-to-noise ratio. This means GPS receivers might have a harder time finding satellites or your ability to hear a nearby navigational beacon is diminished. It does not imply that your equipment will be receiving misleading information (e.g. GPS telling you you're on a different heading, or a navigation beacon appearing 30 degrees away from where it really is). It should be obvious in all cases when your equipment is experiencing interference, unless you're using really really bad/cheap equipment.
I am also a certificated pilot training for my instrument rating, and you can bet I am not going to allow my future passenger(s) to run their CD walkmans
And it's this kind of paranoia that really saddens me. You probably heard scary stories from your own flight instructors and are just passing that FUD on to those reading Slashdot.
As the pilot, you're certainly the master of your own vessel, and I'd rather have a pilot that's comfortable with his flying than one that's nervous about a device I might be trying to use, so I'm not going to try and challenge this decision. I do believe that your concern is unfounded, though.
A faraday cage requires grounding, though. The skin acts as a great shield, but it isn't quite the same.
This is about as likely as me sending an SMS message with my cell phone and having the same message appear in my web browser as I'm loading a web page, magically injected into the network's data stream.
Lots of things are "possible", but are still effectively impossible. This is one of those things. Some "dumb" analog signals might be affected, but none of the high-level systems would be misled by bogus data like this.
Electronics will, at best, degrade or inject noise into a signal. Unless you're using some really brain-dead modulation and encoding schemes, this degradation will be immediately detectable as such. You shouldn't be relying on digital data over an analog medium without some form of data consistency checks, and I would be extremely surprised if modern avionics were designed without these checks.
Note that this could still send you off course, but that'd still require a number of factors:
- interference beyond usability of GPS signals
- interference with the network of navigational beacons on the ground, each operating on their own frequencies, making them unusable
- interference with the pilots, impacting their ability to fly the plane according to visual flight rules after noticing that GPS and navigation beacons are no longer there
Though I will concede that some "dumb" sensors, that provide simple analog inputs to a more intelligent device that interprets and aggregates the data, might be more sensitive to interference, and yah, I can see how you might be able to affect the signal for these sensors, but the impact this interference will have is going to be very negligible and sanity checks with other sensors are going to make up for one that's giving faulty data. There's also a margin of error built into these readings to accomodate potential interference.I, for one, can't turn my cell phone off,(asides letting the batteries die)
What kind of cell phone is this?
You're picking nits. There's the radio also. If you intend to listen to a work several times, and your local radio station isn't giving it any air play, and the preview isn't sufficient, you just need to buy it or forget about it. This is no different than the way things are done traditionally.
I guess I'll just have to accept that.. I've never noticed any breeze from the unit I had, unless I was close enough to the device.
Because the service allows for free previews? This is explained on the site and in the article summary.
Please try to actually understand something by reading the article before you take up a position against it. You come across as very closed-minded when you're very vocal against something like this even though you don't seem to know anything about it.
mine blows a breeze at me from 15 feet away... Can I feel air moving? Yes.
I highly doubt this. I used to own an Ionic Breeze and while I could detect the very slight movement of air around the device, there's no way in hell you're going to say that the thing puts out a breeze at 15 feet.
Again, I disagree with the other poster in that the Ionic Breeze does move air, but it's nearly imperceptible. It is sufficient to scrub most of the air in a room over the course of a few days (maybe 24 hours or less for a smaller room), but I'd be really skeptical of someone claiming that it works faster than that.
I realize you're taking the parent post a little personally, and you're probably exaggerating to try and make your point better, but try not to go so overboard.
One thing you should really be aware of: in most larger buildings, ventilation is a major thing. In a school especially, the air in a given classroom is being exchanged completely fairly frequently. In the case of the Ionic Breeze, by itself, its ability to circulate air is incredibly weak, so it relies on ambient circulation at least as much. And even then, it's highly unlikely that it would compete with the circulation abilities of your building's ventilation. It's like turning the heat on in the dead of winter with all of your doors and windows opened. It's literally trying to filter the air of the entire school.
You are most likely experiencing a placebo effect, or some other environmental difference in his room that just makes it feel better to you.
Though I may be wrong here. Maybe your school is really old, or maybe your teacher is using a freakin' huge Ionic Breeze. Obviously I don't know these things, but just be sure you're considering all of the possibilities here.
I too have used an Ionic Breeze and have replaced it with a true HEPA filter system. The difference is literally *visible* in the air and orders of magnitude better when you actually examine just the pre-filter for the HEPA system. The Ionic Breeze would certainly collect dust (and it was kind of nifty the way it worked), but it really wasn't very significant and it worked very slowly.
This has been rehashed a million times in this article. This is a free market economy. Feel free to go spend your $16 and grab an album in your Sam Goody.
Myself, I'll be spending anywhere from $1 to $5 per album of interest with this service, depending on which tracks of that CD I actually like. If there's a rare album that I actually enjoy in its entirety, I'll probably consider buying the CD instead.
Nobody is suggesting that this service will replace retail distribution of CD's. Each service has its benefits and weaknesses. Use whatever you prefer and what makes sense for the situation.
broadcast bought tunes using Shoutcast
How is this a legal, fair use of a copyrighted work? Unless you're using the word "broadcast" when you mean to suggest you wish to stream the music to a receiver elsewhere in your home?
If more people were to use PGP and X.509 signatures, would we have this problem? In a PGP-style universe, if we only accepted e-mail from signatures that were trusted (even in a distant way), you could reasonably count on people not signing for someone else's signature if they thought that someone else was going to spam with it. And if they did it more than once, you could just blacklist the signer.
X.509 is a bit trickier, since the CA's aren't exactly picky about who they sell a certificate to. But there could always be a contractual provision in that when you sell someone a certificate, you have enough legal contact information that if they *are* using it to spam, the CA can go after them for mega-penalties.
So put a finite expiration date on each listing. If you have no reason to continue blackholing it, it eventually falls off the list.
These things can be useful and done effectively. You just have to find someone you can trust to be unbiased and methodical to manage it.
You know, I wonder if you set up a web page or a posting somewhere for a free stress testing service. All you do is invite people to send an e-mail to your automated mailbox containing one or more URL's they'd like to see stress tested.
So you'll inevitably get spam, and that spam will contain URL's. Could this be a way to legally DoS a spammer?