Still seems to me like something has to change.... either the people need to relocate or the facility does. If they own the land, then why did they allow development there in the first place? Such interference was *inevitable*.
Yes, of course I realize what the purpose of a radio telescope is. But if commonplace technology in a nearby town is going to start interfering with that purpose, then it stands to reason that they should relocate.
Breaking news.... advancing technology sometimes breaks older technology. It's a fact of life... we either live with it, or move further away from other people so that we don't have to deal with it.
Then as the use of those frequencies started to become prevalent, they should have either started change the way they look for things or else move.... or else buy out all of the surrounding land so that they *CAN* dictate the terms of technological operations on it.
If they don't own the nearby land, then I can see no reason why they should be able to dictate what goes on nearby when those activities are otherwise legitimate and very common elsewhere.
If they really need to use the frequencies that a technologically developed society uses all the time, then they should build their instruments in a remote enough location that regular use of technology would not be likely to interfere with them, instead of building it near enough to a town or city that a school could reasonably pose a threat just by using wifi.
... between living with the problems that flash has but still being able to use the websites that I visit which utilize it (mostly tv station websites) and not using those websites at all (which would require that to watch the same programs, I would either have to pay more money every month for cable tv, instead of legitimately streaming the shows from the networks' websites, or else resort to pirating the shows, an activity that I object to on moral grounds in cases where the work is available cheaply and legally through a venue approved of by its maker, even if that venue is not my own first choice), I have to admit to simply preferring to live with Flash's problems.
If all these networks didn't insist on using it for their shows, I'd be quite happy to uninstall flash entirely. But they do, so I don't.
Good reason for who? The user? Probably not... Good reason for the website owner? Definitely. Just because you might not agree with those reasons doesn't mean they don't carry any value for other people.
Let me say up front that I'd love to be rid of flash forever, but that said... there seems to be an inseparable bond between multimedia and flash.
However....
I don't have cable... I don't watch enough TV to justify the expense... but there's a handful of shows (3 of them) that I really *do* like to watch each week, and the networks that air them in my area coincidentally also have those shows available for streaming one day after they air, which allows me to watch them at my convenience. The caveat is that all of these networks require flash to watch the programs in a browser window.
Okay, so I'm also still sitting through a minute or so of commercials every 8 to 10 minutes, much as I would if I watched it live, but this is preferable to me to not watching the shows I like at all.
I choose to not resort to piracy because I don't subscribe to the notion that just because I might want something that somebody else made, that this should somehow mean I am entitled to have it on terms that the maker never agreed to.
Show me an html5 alternative that a) provides a seamless viewing experience; and b) content makers will be sufficiently satisfied with the level of control that it offers that they are actually willing to utilize it (which is realistically still going to mean that the distributor gets to insert advertisements at places of their choosing), and I'd love to say goodbye to flash forever.
Or perhaps more accurately, no, or at least not fluently.
You might be able to presume that a majority of programmers have encountered english before, and may have a very basic understanding of it. But that's a far cry from having a practical and functional understanding of it.
My point was that even *WE* don't typically broadcast signals of sufficient strength to even be distinguishable from background noise only as far away as the nearest star, much less any further, unless we very specifically intend to. So unless an alien civilization somewhere out there were actively trying to send signals to the stars, we aren't ever going to discover them with SETI. Period.
GPL allows the creator to retain control over the copies of the work that get made by still requiring permission to copy the work, much as a copyright in a book might be, for instance. The GPL simply outlines what terms a person must agree to so that they can obtain permission to copy the work (which is simply to agree to its terms). If you don't like the requirement that future derived works have their source code available, the GPL is not for you... but that's a far cry from saying that there aren't people out there who find that approach quite appealing, myself included.
... to think that anything in line with typical-strength radio broadcasts (and which were not being specifically directed out towards the stars for an attempt to send an interplanetary signal) from a distant planet would have any chance of being decipherable from background noise if the origin of such a signal were even as near as the closest star?
No. Not the same at all... With a web proxy you are only "anonymous" to the end-point site you are communicating with. You are not necessarily anonymous to the proxy, since you are providing your real IP to them, and the proxy's IP address is not remotely anonymous to the site you are connecting to through it. Theoretically, any proxy server you connect to could very much be capable of providing the IP address that you connected to it from to a requesting party, and from there, you might get the ISP, which can then trace to your own personal connection. Multiple proxies in between merely add more layers of indirection, the actual level of anonymity is still roughly the same. In fact, with the only anonymity you get with a proxy is the minimum of either the amount of anonymity the hosts of the proxy network are actually willing to provide you with, and the amount of anonymity you might get by making it inconvenient enough to find out who you are that somebody who might otherwise be interested could not practically justify the effort or expense of finding you.
IP spoofing, on the other hand, is something that you administrate entirely yourself, and involves forging the sender's address that is embedded in any IP packets that originate on your computer. NAT is a well-known form of IP spoofing.
Technical terms have technical meanings. One would think people who've been reading slashdot for any period of time would know that.
Re:Yet detractors criticize it as being complicate
on
The Book of GIMP
·
· Score: 1
That's not IP spoofing... that's using a proxy. IP address spoofing tends to mean something else entirely, and, as I said... can't generally be practiced outside of a LAN.
If you try to use an IP that your ISP owns, but isn't the one actually allocated to you, the company's hardware that connects your network to theirs may simply reject your packets out of hand. Even if it doesn't, the risk of IP collisions will get pretty high, and will alert your ISP to your activities.
If you try to use an IP that your ISP doesn't own, even assuming that you can get past the company's hardware that connects your network to theirs, they would still be able to spot it in an instant, again, alerting the ISP to what you were doing.
There are legitimate reasons to spoof an IP, but I can't think of any that are applicable to when you are utilizing a network that you do not either own or have any rights to administrate (ie, your ISP).
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it meant I had the right to have arms like a bear. Big and furry.
Still seems to me like something has to change.... either the people need to relocate or the facility does. If they own the land, then why did they allow development there in the first place? Such interference was *inevitable*.
Yes, of course I realize what the purpose of a radio telescope is. But if commonplace technology in a nearby town is going to start interfering with that purpose, then it stands to reason that they should relocate.
Breaking news.... advancing technology sometimes breaks older technology. It's a fact of life... we either live with it, or move further away from other people so that we don't have to deal with it.
Then as the use of those frequencies started to become prevalent, they should have either started change the way they look for things or else move.... or else buy out all of the surrounding land so that they *CAN* dictate the terms of technological operations on it.
If they don't own the nearby land, then I can see no reason why they should be able to dictate what goes on nearby when those activities are otherwise legitimate and very common elsewhere.
If they really need to use the frequencies that a technologically developed society uses all the time, then they should build their instruments in a remote enough location that regular use of technology would not be likely to interfere with them, instead of building it near enough to a town or city that a school could reasonably pose a threat just by using wifi.
If all these networks didn't insist on using it for their shows, I'd be quite happy to uninstall flash entirely. But they do, so I don't.
Got a reference for that? My understanding was that it was originally written in C, for iOS, and later ported to other platforms.
Good reason for who? The user? Probably not... Good reason for the website owner? Definitely. Just because you might not agree with those reasons doesn't mean they don't carry any value for other people.
....was things like home newspaper delivery not seen as an effing obvious previous implementation of this?
Let me say up front that I'd love to be rid of flash forever, but that said... there seems to be an inseparable bond between multimedia and flash.
However....
I don't have cable... I don't watch enough TV to justify the expense... but there's a handful of shows (3 of them) that I really *do* like to watch each week, and the networks that air them in my area coincidentally also have those shows available for streaming one day after they air, which allows me to watch them at my convenience. The caveat is that all of these networks require flash to watch the programs in a browser window.
Okay, so I'm also still sitting through a minute or so of commercials every 8 to 10 minutes, much as I would if I watched it live, but this is preferable to me to not watching the shows I like at all.
I choose to not resort to piracy because I don't subscribe to the notion that just because I might want something that somebody else made, that this should somehow mean I am entitled to have it on terms that the maker never agreed to.
Show me an html5 alternative that a) provides a seamless viewing experience; and b) content makers will be sufficiently satisfied with the level of control that it offers that they are actually willing to utilize it (which is realistically still going to mean that the distributor gets to insert advertisements at places of their choosing), and I'd love to say goodbye to flash forever.
Or perhaps more accurately, no, or at least not fluently.
You might be able to presume that a majority of programmers have encountered english before, and may have a very basic understanding of it. But that's a far cry from having a practical and functional understanding of it.
I would imagine that the former would have long since precluded the latter.
My point was that even *WE* don't typically broadcast signals of sufficient strength to even be distinguishable from background noise only as far away as the nearest star, much less any further, unless we very specifically intend to. So unless an alien civilization somewhere out there were actively trying to send signals to the stars, we aren't ever going to discover them with SETI. Period.
GPL allows the creator to retain control over the copies of the work that get made by still requiring permission to copy the work, much as a copyright in a book might be, for instance. The GPL simply outlines what terms a person must agree to so that they can obtain permission to copy the work (which is simply to agree to its terms). If you don't like the requirement that future derived works have their source code available, the GPL is not for you... but that's a far cry from saying that there aren't people out there who find that approach quite appealing, myself included.
It's also highly directed.
... to think that anything in line with typical-strength radio broadcasts (and which were not being specifically directed out towards the stars for an attempt to send an interplanetary signal) from a distant planet would have any chance of being decipherable from background noise if the origin of such a signal were even as near as the closest star?
No. Not the same at all... With a web proxy you are only "anonymous" to the end-point site you are communicating with. You are not necessarily anonymous to the proxy, since you are providing your real IP to them, and the proxy's IP address is not remotely anonymous to the site you are connecting to through it. Theoretically, any proxy server you connect to could very much be capable of providing the IP address that you connected to it from to a requesting party, and from there, you might get the ISP, which can then trace to your own personal connection. Multiple proxies in between merely add more layers of indirection, the actual level of anonymity is still roughly the same. In fact, with the only anonymity you get with a proxy is the minimum of either the amount of anonymity the hosts of the proxy network are actually willing to provide you with, and the amount of anonymity you might get by making it inconvenient enough to find out who you are that somebody who might otherwise be interested could not practically justify the effort or expense of finding you.
IP spoofing, on the other hand, is something that you administrate entirely yourself, and involves forging the sender's address that is embedded in any IP packets that originate on your computer. NAT is a well-known form of IP spoofing.
Technical terms have technical meanings. One would think people who've been reading slashdot for any period of time would know that.
Which, like, *NEVER* happens, right?
But where is Sun?
That's not IP spoofing... that's using a proxy. IP address spoofing tends to mean something else entirely, and, as I said... can't generally be practiced outside of a LAN.
How do you spoof your IP outside of your own LAN?
If you try to use an IP that your ISP owns, but isn't the one actually allocated to you, the company's hardware that connects your network to theirs may simply reject your packets out of hand. Even if it doesn't, the risk of IP collisions will get pretty high, and will alert your ISP to your activities.
If you try to use an IP that your ISP doesn't own, even assuming that you can get past the company's hardware that connects your network to theirs, they would still be able to spot it in an instant, again, alerting the ISP to what you were doing.
There are legitimate reasons to spoof an IP, but I can't think of any that are applicable to when you are utilizing a network that you do not either own or have any rights to administrate (ie, your ISP).
Slackware
What are the other 51 nuances?
Red matter.
Although I agree, it is very weakly explained in the film.