I stream Radio Paradise, Pandora, C-SPAN, NPR, etc. all via 3g on my iPhone while driving. It works fine until I stray out of 3g coverage. Unlimited data means it costs me nothing.
I've actually found it kind of annoying that Facebook strips exif data. I've wanted to pull it out of some of the pics of friends' iPhone photos and creep them out by knowing where they were when they took them.:)
These are the good guys (unlike the FBI, who are media-whoring, civil-rights-abusing porno-police).
Dick Gordon: National Security Agency. Martin Bishop: Ah. You're the guys I hear breathing on the other end of my phone. Dick Gordon: No, that's the FBI. We're not chartered for domestic surveillance. Martin Bishop: Oh, I see. You just overthrow governments. Set up friendly dictators. Dick Gordon: No, that's the CIA. We protect our government's communications, we try to break the other fella's codes. We're the good guys, Marty. Martin Bishop: Gee, I can't tell you what a relief that is... Dick.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (x) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it, anywhere other than Russia ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (x) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems (x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes (x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (x) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (x) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, asshole! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Right, because your immune system is actually being agitated by the actual allergic response to the actual allergens, and it takes time to come down, plus there are probably still actual allergens like pollen stuck in your sinuses and continuing to irritate you.
Clearly. I take issue with the "allergy" term, yes. That wasn't my point.
The OP was saying how simple it is to test by simply placing the subject in a room and turning on and off the wifi, and I was rebutting that it isn't quite so simple as he's making it out to be.
you cannot deny that hate is taught by religion...Few religions have any tolerance for gays, different religious people, atheists, women who want equality, etc.
You do know that Jesus hung around some of the lowest-class and most sinful people, right? The analog to our contemporary trailer trash. He challenged them about their sins, but he certainly didn't berate them. Read John 4, and Jesus's interaction with the woman at the well in Samaria.
Just because many of the followers of the religion take its teachings incorrectly, does NOT mean that it is endorsed by the religion. And I say as a Christian, that goes for most other religions as well.
Really? I honestly don't think I see more terrorist attacks today than prior to 9/11. Don't forget Oklahoma City, the first WTC bombing, the Unabomber, etc. etc. Terrorist attacks are a fact of life, and are most certainly not limited to attacks on aircraft.
What I *do* see is a lot of mis-characterized "terrorist" attacks around the globe. An IED blows up a humvee in Iraq? Terrorist! (No, it's a military strike.)
and the other $3 million will be in the form of "certificates" awarded to the plaintiffs good for 1 free "optimization" on a computer purchase at Best Buy within the next 12 months.
You guys have to go to work every day whether you're upgrading or not - the 'expense' then, is that you might actually have to do something.
Two points.
1.) I do things other than running on a constant upgrade cycle. 2.) If my job is constant upgrading, and my company can get rid of the constant upgrade cycle, then they can save the money they are spending on me.
Corollary to #2 above: If your job is threatened by process efficiency, automation, etc., make absolute certain that you are the one to suggest and implement the process efficiency, automation, or whatever. Instead of losing your job, more likely you'll find yourself suddenly indispensable.
Having that software cost removed simply removes a cost.
No doubt. The point I was making was that there is a major cost in short upgrade cycles. Just because the software is free does NOT mean the upgrade does not cost.
I assert that removing the software cost in most production enterprise cases does not remove the majority of the cost of an upgrade. Testing, migration, training, smashing inevitable resulting bugs, and similar activities make up the majority of the cost, in my experience.
That's ok, the linux policy of free upgrades more than makes up for that for me.
You know, in a production computing environment, the cost of the software is pretty darn close to the least significant part of the costs of an upgrade, right?
The best thing that could happen to him would be the footage being "lost". Since I'm sure they have clear retention and chain of custody policies, it would indicate that it was "lost" for a reason and be a *very* strong indicator to a jury that something is amiss.
More likely, the video surveillance will show what most of these sorts of things show: The law enforcement types were out of line, but the subject was being an ass, also. (Utah TASER guy, "Don't tase me bro!" guy...) Yes, being an ass isn't illegal.
I'd be OK in principle with a lower monthly fee for a data plan with X gigabytes, *if* they extended the concept of "rollover" to data. That should help to alleviate some of the fears of the more gun shy data users.
I suspect that may well be the route they will take.
One factor that most are missing is that most ISPs over subscriber their consumer class bandwidth.
Did you know that if every house in a typical American neighborhood used all of the electrical capacity to their homes, blackouts would ensue?
Or that if an entire city flushed their toilets, took a shower, and ran the washer at the same time, the water flow would slow to a trickle?
Or if every car went onto the local Interstate highway at the same time, traffic would completely stop?
Over-subscription just makes sense. It's a sound engineering principle, when done correctly. Granted 2 of those 3 examples tend to not happen if for no other reason than people are charged on a usage basis. But my point is that there is nothing wrong with over-subscription, it is in fact a *good* thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I stream Radio Paradise, Pandora, C-SPAN, NPR, etc. all via 3g on my iPhone while driving. It works fine until I stray out of 3g coverage. Unlimited data means it costs me nothing.
I've actually found it kind of annoying that Facebook strips exif data. I've wanted to pull it out of some of the pics of friends' iPhone photos and creep them out by knowing where they were when they took them. :)
These are the good guys (unlike the FBI, who are media-whoring, civil-rights-abusing porno-police).
Dick Gordon: National Security Agency.
Martin Bishop: Ah. You're the guys I hear breathing on the other end of my phone.
Dick Gordon: No, that's the FBI. We're not chartered for domestic surveillance.
Martin Bishop: Oh, I see. You just overthrow governments. Set up friendly dictators.
Dick Gordon: No, that's the CIA. We protect our government's communications, we try to break the other fella's codes. We're the good guys, Marty.
Martin Bishop: Gee, I can't tell you what a relief that is... Dick.
(shamelessly copied/pasted from IMDB...)
or a "free speech permit" to complain about their elected officials.
Ummm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
Oh, this is exciting, I've never done this before!
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it, anywhere other than Russia
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(x) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(x) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, asshole! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
are also complaining that the christmas crotch bomber was not caught. damned if you do, damned if you don't
It's a fallacy to assume that both opinions are held by the same people.
I'm making a Low Budget HDV Filipino Horror Movie in NYC
Are you ever gonna finish that thing? :)
I thought you guys were had a right to bare arms, what is the difference between a shot gun and a jet?
By my reading of the U.S. Constitution, there shouldn't be a difference, and it should be allowed.
But hey, I'm the nutjob who also thinks that the Constitution would permit me to own a nuclear weapon, so take that opinion for what it's worth.
BTW, I'm also in favor of re-writing the second amendment to be a bit more sane for modern weaponry.
So, have you sued your neighbors yet for having trees?
This is America. Lawsuits over trees are anything BUT unheard of.
By the way, I've been on Facebook too much recently. I read the cell tower story, laughed, and tried find the "Like" button...
Right, because your immune system is actually being agitated by the actual allergic response to the actual allergens, and it takes time to come down, plus there are probably still actual allergens like pollen stuck in your sinuses and continuing to irritate you.
Clearly. I take issue with the "allergy" term, yes. That wasn't my point.
The OP was saying how simple it is to test by simply placing the subject in a room and turning on and off the wifi, and I was rebutting that it isn't quite so simple as he's making it out to be.
Put him in a room, and turn the wireless on and off. Guaranteed he won't be able to tell the difference.
That's all well and good, and I'm sure the guy is full of it, BUT...
Many allergic reactions (like my own seasonal allergies) don't come and go like a light switch in the presence or absence of the allergen.
I could sit in a clean room for 2 or 3 days after getting really spun up from my tree allergies until the symptoms really begin to diminish.
you cannot deny that hate is taught by religion...Few religions have any tolerance for gays, different religious people, atheists, women who want equality, etc.
You do know that Jesus hung around some of the lowest-class and most sinful people, right? The analog to our contemporary trailer trash. He challenged them about their sins, but he certainly didn't berate them. Read John 4, and Jesus's interaction with the woman at the well in Samaria.
Just because many of the followers of the religion take its teachings incorrectly, does NOT mean that it is endorsed by the religion. And I say as a Christian, that goes for most other religions as well.
Sure - we see more attacks.
Really? I honestly don't think I see more terrorist attacks today than prior to 9/11. Don't forget Oklahoma City, the first WTC bombing, the Unabomber, etc. etc. Terrorist attacks are a fact of life, and are most certainly not limited to attacks on aircraft.
What I *do* see is a lot of mis-characterized "terrorist" attacks around the globe. An IED blows up a humvee in Iraq? Terrorist! (No, it's a military strike.)
and the other $3 million will be in the form of "certificates" awarded to the plaintiffs good for 1 free "optimization" on a computer purchase at Best Buy within the next 12 months.
You mean $3 off your next optimization.
Not just Silicon Graphics, but also Cray.
Alas, how the mighty have fallen.
AT&T's woes are from being overused in the big cities.
Sorry, but that's only part of it. It's also a complete lack of reasonable coverage outside of cities. There's a map for that...
You guys have to go to work every day whether you're upgrading or not - the 'expense' then, is that you might actually have to do something.
Two points.
1.) I do things other than running on a constant upgrade cycle.
2.) If my job is constant upgrading, and my company can get rid of the constant upgrade cycle, then they can save the money they are spending on me.
Corollary to #2 above: If your job is threatened by process efficiency, automation, etc., make absolute certain that you are the one to suggest and implement the process efficiency, automation, or whatever. Instead of losing your job, more likely you'll find yourself suddenly indispensable.
where do you come up with this?
I've been around.
Having that software cost removed simply removes a cost.
No doubt. The point I was making was that there is a major cost in short upgrade cycles. Just because the software is free does NOT mean the upgrade does not cost.
I assert that removing the software cost in most production enterprise cases does not remove the majority of the cost of an upgrade. Testing, migration, training, smashing inevitable resulting bugs, and similar activities make up the majority of the cost, in my experience.
That's ok, the linux policy of free upgrades more than makes up for that for me.
You know, in a production computing environment, the cost of the software is pretty darn close to the least significant part of the costs of an upgrade, right?
Remember, our calendar uses 1-based math, not 0-based.
Any set of 10 years can be a decade, and common usage refers to decades of the same first digit (e.g. the 80's or the 90's).
The best thing that could happen to him would be the footage being "lost". Since I'm sure they have clear retention and chain of custody policies, it would indicate that it was "lost" for a reason and be a *very* strong indicator to a jury that something is amiss.
More likely, the video surveillance will show what most of these sorts of things show: The law enforcement types were out of line, but the subject was being an ass, also. (Utah TASER guy, "Don't tase me bro!" guy...) Yes, being an ass isn't illegal.
Nope, but that *is* when you find out that the patch or configuration change you made some time ago broke the system's ability to boot. :)
I'd be OK in principle with a lower monthly fee for a data plan with X gigabytes, *if* they extended the concept of "rollover" to data. That should help to alleviate some of the fears of the more gun shy data users.
I suspect that may well be the route they will take.
One factor that most are missing is that most ISPs over subscriber their consumer class bandwidth.
Did you know that if every house in a typical American neighborhood used all of the electrical capacity to their homes, blackouts would ensue?
Or that if an entire city flushed their toilets, took a shower, and ran the washer at the same time, the water flow would slow to a trickle?
Or if every car went onto the local Interstate highway at the same time, traffic would completely stop?
Over-subscription just makes sense. It's a sound engineering principle, when done correctly. Granted 2 of those 3 examples tend to not happen if for no other reason than people are charged on a usage basis. But my point is that there is nothing wrong with over-subscription, it is in fact a *good* thing.
The infrastructure was built using government funds.
For a cellular network?
Please enlighten me, I'm not familiar with this.