Umm, except that it says “Central Time”, and assuming this means U.S. Central Time (CT) that’s UTC–5—not UTC–6, GMT+6, or anything else—all day on the day(s) in question and most of the year.
Central Time is UTC–5 (Central Daylight-saving Time, CDT) until 20121104T0700 UTC when it becomes UTC–6 (Central Standard Time, CST).
I guess the courts getting a clue later is better than not at all...
Umm, when a judge, after presiding over an entire trial about the transfer of files, believes it is possible to upload something to a network, that's far, far, oh, so far from "getting a clue".
To translate for those 97% who use civilised units:
Remember that we use "Heat Engines"... The more [energy] per [volume] of fuel translates into more [distance] per [volume]!
With the new mandate for [6.7 cL/km] cars on the horizon, I'd imagine they will be using Diesel. (Anyone notice the new Volkswagen "clean Diesel" commercials?)
Also, the US Government pays a [0.13 USD/L] as a subsidy. (I think this is at the production level). Otherwise, Ethanol production could not compete with oil.
FYI:
Methanol [18.0 MJ/L]
Ethanol [23.6 MJ/L]
Gasohol [33.70 MJ/L] (10% Ethanol to 90% Gasoline)
Oh, crap. Sorry. I was obviously completely wrong (in my "logic") in that comment, and on more than one count. I've been awake far too long. Unfortunately, though, I think my falsely-derived conclusion happened to be correct anyway.
Here's the (real) evidence, instead of that irrelevant garbage I posted a few minutes ago:
It's one thing for a spam filter to make a mistake or even be careless and put a message into the spam folder, but quite another for a filter to intentionally cause known good messages to be absent from a user[']s inbox.
This is a misunderstanding of blacklists. Blacklists are not filters; some filtering methods use blacklists, and ORDB was (is) a blacklist. The operators of blacklists, by definition, cannot cause anything to happen with anyone's e-mail. Every blacklist has a criterion or criteria for listing, and any user of that list can check to find if a given IP address or domain name is listed. Listing criteria could be "domain recently bounced e-mail to postmaster@", "IP address was reported as sending junk mail by fifty different users", or "IP address is on Bob's personal shit-list". Users of blacklists can do whatever they like with the data. When ORDB was active, mail servers for domains I controlled checked all incoming connections against ORDB and simply refused to converse any further with listed systems. ORDB didn't make the mail bounce. I did. By my choice, just like the choices of everyone else who has ever used ORDB or any other blacklist, I specifically configured my systems to refuse messages from systems (or domains) listed. I decided that the listing of an IP address by ORDB was reason enough to refuse connections from it.
Why don't they just start reporting all messages as good, or just not give any rating to any message?
That is exactly what they've been doing for over fifteen months. They stopped listing anything. In fact, they stopped responding at all. Almost every system that was left configured to use ORDB after it was shut down in December 2006 has logged an error message every time it tried to check an incoming connection or message against ORDB, because ORDB didn't respond. Some systems with particularly out-of-touch administration have persisted in trying to query ORDB--or, according to this story, so many that it's been an annoyance to the admins of the systems receiving the queries. If this goes on for months and months and months, I think it's quite reasonable for the blacklist admins, who stopped their service fifteen months ago, to start a new list with a single new criterion: Everything is listed. Call it a test list. It's their list, and they can do whatever they want with it. The only systems that are affected are those that are specifically configured to use this list.
So, if you, the administrator, specifically tell your mail system to refuse to accept mail sent from a system listed in ORDB (which ceased to exist long ago), your system will now bounce everything until you stop telling it to do that. According to the story, this is what's happening, but only in the systems configured to do exactly that.
Is this the same technology that Microsoft has tried to demo (twice) with less-than-spectacular results?
By "less-than-spectacular results" do you mean that they merely failed, just not in a Vista sort of way?
And remember that Microsoft's trying something twice and failing provides no evidence against its feasibility. Using the white space requires absolutely playing nice with others, only using what's genuinely available, and being sensitive to others' use of spectrum. This means being respectful of users who aren't even using Microsoft products!
Shocking that Microsoft failed at something that explicitly required not stomping on others.
I'm hoping that if the merger goes through and digital FM takes off, they will merge the duplicate satellite channels into CD quality channels.
There's one little catch: Sirius and XM are technically very different. Their signals and encodings are different. An XM receiver has to be able to read a signal from a satellite way down south in geosynchronous orbit, while Sirius uses multiple satellites in funky orbits such that there's always one fairly high in the sky. An XM receiver only listens to half of the total bandwidth at once, but a Sirius receiver listens to everything it can.
I'd love to see the redundancy go away, but I think the two systems are too different for that to happen unless either (1) one of them is shut down and the other expands to use the freed spectrum or (2) current receivers are replaced with intrinsically more expensive dual-system receivers--without the downward price pressure of the competition that existed before the merger.
Does anyone know if the first scenario could work with existing receivers? I remember something about a deadline by which Sirius and XM were to have been required to only sell receivers that were compatible with both systems, in order to remove that barrier to competition (because back before Bush the U.S. had these things called "anti-trust laws"). This, and the fact that the two systems are in adjacent chunks of spectrum, would seem to imply that either system could just expand to use the spectrum of the other, and that at least the receivers of one system would still work.
I'm hoping that if the merger goes through and digital FM takes off, they will merge the duplicate satellite channels into CD quality channels.
There's one little catch: Sirius and XM are technically very different. Their signals and encodings are different. An XM receiver only listens to half of the total bandwidth at once, whereas a Sirius receiver listens to everything it can. An XM receiver has to be able to read a signal from a satellite way down south in geosynchronous orbit, while Sirius uses multiple satellites in funky orbits such that there's always one fairly high in the sky.
I'd love to see the redundancy go away, but I think the two systems are two different for that to happen unless either (1) one of them is shut down and the other expands to use the freed spectrum or (2) current receivers are replaced with intrinsically more expensive dual-system receivers--without the downward price pressure of the competition that existed before the merger.
Does anyone know if the first scenario could work with existing receivers? I remember something about a deadline by which Sirius and XM were to have been required to only sell receivers that were compatible with both systems, to remove that barrier to competition (because back before Bush the U.S. had these things called "anti-trust laws"). This, and the fact that the two systems are in adjacent chunks of spectrum, would seem to imply that either system could just expand to use the spectrum of the other, and that at least the receivers one system would still work.
[... T]heir audio is better than FM but not CD quality.
On Sirius, the audio quality of their music-only channels is clearly better than analog FM terrestrial, but the audio quality of their speech channels is absolute crap.
By my figures, excellent-quality human speech takes about 1/8 the bandwidth required for moderately-crappy-quality music (1/2 the number of channels, 1/2 the sampling rate, and double the compression on what remains), and my ear tells me that Sirius probably gives each talk channel less than half of that. If I'm correct, then Sirius could, at will, change all 47 of their regular talk channels (excluding the 18 "traffic & weather" and occasional-use "sports play-by-play" channels) to excellent quality by deleting less than 1/10 of their 68 music-only channels. If I'm incorrect, then all the regular talk channels could still at least change to good, perfectly-acceptable quality at the expense of 1/10 of their music channels.
Since I only use the service to get through weekend nights, when my two local (and generally excellent) public stations are less than enthralling, it's sad that I end up finding podcasts instead just because the audio quality is better.
Also note Apple's tech discussed here a couple of years ago.
The Stanford camera uses a dense array of micro-cameras with one main objective lens for large scans, or for macro, just the array without said lens. Apple's patent filing is for a much larger (physically), sparser array in an integral camera-display--a display and compound camera made of micro-cameras interspersed with the pixels in a display.
One would expect that Apple's method could provide similar z-axis data, no?
Smart is not the same as not evil, but I'll take intelligent evil over a well-intentioned idiot any day.
Intelligent people, good or evil, are reasonably predictable, and such evil can be countered. Stupid people are terrifically creative in ways that reasonable people cannot foresee, so when they're (often) effectively evil, intentionally or not, reasonable, good people can't see it coming to counter it.
That's 7/1000 of what the U.S. spend on oil per day, or 1.9×10^5 or nineteen millionths of what they spend on oil in a year.
It's a whole 9.7 minutes of crude.
Gee, thanks mister! If the next several thousand people are so generous, I can buy a whole piece of candy!
I think that in a developed economy, 1% as much spent on R&D for alternative energy as on crude oil is laughably little. If one were to accept this 1% pittance as reasonable, however, then 14 M$ would be good for an hour and a half of R&D.
In light of comments against this sort of site in general, I wish to point out a couple of things:
Those in positions of power must not have the same protections as those who are powerless.
1: The position of police officer is a position of great power.
2: The position of police officer is extremely attractive to sociopaths.
3: Some (many) police agencies are--umm--less than perfect at filtering out these especially-eager applicants. Some departments do not filter at all (i.e. they don't perform personality inventories on applicants), with the obvious results. Given that non-sociopaths generally strongly dislike working with sociopaths, it stands to reason that these departments quickly become dominated by the latter. I've lived in city with a police department that did not test its applicants for mental disorders, and that's a large part of the reason I now live in a city with a police department that does.
4: It does not make sense to give a person in a position of power all the protections that are afforded to others. For those in a position to cause suffering to members of society, the interest of the society in preventing abuse clearly outweighs the interest of the individual. (If you want all the usual job protections, don't pursue a job that lets you hurt people.)
Yes, some police officers will be treated unfairly in such a forum. Some will be publicly embarrassed when they don't deserve it. If the forum is effective, some will lose their jobs when they shouldn't. I would think it would even make undercover operations more difficult. All these issues are far outweighed by the benefit of exposing those who should not be allowed to be in positions of power.
The oil companies benefit. This was known before the new rules went into effect in the United States.
When it's light later in the evenings, people drive more.
People use cars in the mornings to get to work, and that doesn't change with lack of daylight.
While the new rules expanding daylight saving time had been promoted as environmentally beneficial, the promoters only claimed it was to reduce home energy consumption (as electricity and heating fuel). The new rules were expected to increase total energy consumption as people stayed out later and used their cars more. This has meant a net increase in energy consumption, heavily weighted to increase the consumption of oil.
While an increase in home energy consumption may surprise some, the increase in oil consumption is no surprise; it's exactly what the legislation was intended to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, except that it says “Central Time”, and assuming this means U.S. Central Time (CT) that’s UTC–5—not UTC–6, GMT+6, or anything else—all day on the day(s) in question and most of the year. Central Time is UTC–5 (Central Daylight-saving Time, CDT) until 20121104T0700 UTC when it becomes UTC–6 (Central Standard Time, CST).
Seriously? It took their “research” division to come up with NAT, DHCP, and DNS caching or proxy? Seriously?
No, you're only thinking of Mac OS X. It was in the classic Mac OS, too, starting several years earlier.
Umm, when a judge, after presiding over an entire trial about the transfer of files, believes it is possible to upload something to a network, that's far, far, oh, so far from "getting a clue".
With the new mandate for [6.7 cL/km] cars on the horizon, I'd imagine they will be using Diesel. (Anyone notice the new Volkswagen "clean Diesel" commercials?)
Also, the US Government pays a [0.13 USD/L] as a subsidy. (I think this is at the production level). Otherwise, Ethanol production could not compete with oil.
FYI:
Methanol [18.0 MJ/L]
Ethanol [23.6 MJ/L]
Gasohol [33.70 MJ/L] (10% Ethanol to 90% Gasoline)
Gasoline [34.8 MJ/L]
Biodiesel [36 MJ/L]
Diesel [38.66 MJ/L]
Most from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
And now, there is no relays.ordb.org or ordb.org, so there can be no blacklists there, so there can be no listings. Unless I screwed up again.
At least now, there is no relays.ordb.org or ordb.org, so there can be no blacklists there, so there can be no listings.
This is a misunderstanding of blacklists. Blacklists are not filters; some filtering methods use blacklists, and ORDB was (is) a blacklist. The operators of blacklists, by definition, cannot cause anything to happen with anyone's e-mail. Every blacklist has a criterion or criteria for listing, and any user of that list can check to find if a given IP address or domain name is listed. Listing criteria could be "domain recently bounced e-mail to postmaster@", "IP address was reported as sending junk mail by fifty different users", or "IP address is on Bob's personal shit-list". Users of blacklists can do whatever they like with the data. When ORDB was active, mail servers for domains I controlled checked all incoming connections against ORDB and simply refused to converse any further with listed systems. ORDB didn't make the mail bounce. I did. By my choice, just like the choices of everyone else who has ever used ORDB or any other blacklist, I specifically configured my systems to refuse messages from systems (or domains) listed. I decided that the listing of an IP address by ORDB was reason enough to refuse connections from it.
That is exactly what they've been doing for over fifteen months. They stopped listing anything. In fact, they stopped responding at all. Almost every system that was left configured to use ORDB after it was shut down in December 2006 has logged an error message every time it tried to check an incoming connection or message against ORDB, because ORDB didn't respond. Some systems with particularly out-of-touch administration have persisted in trying to query ORDB--or, according to this story, so many that it's been an annoyance to the admins of the systems receiving the queries. If this goes on for months and months and months, I think it's quite reasonable for the blacklist admins, who stopped their service fifteen months ago, to start a new list with a single new criterion: Everything is listed. Call it a test list. It's their list, and they can do whatever they want with it. The only systems that are affected are those that are specifically configured to use this list.So, if you, the administrator, specifically tell your mail system to refuse to accept mail sent from a system listed in ORDB (which ceased to exist long ago), your system will now bounce everything until you stop telling it to do that. According to the story, this is what's happening, but only in the systems configured to do exactly that.
By "less-than-spectacular results" do you mean that they merely failed, just not in a Vista sort of way?
And remember that Microsoft's trying something twice and failing provides no evidence against its feasibility. Using the white space requires absolutely playing nice with others, only using what's genuinely available, and being sensitive to others' use of spectrum. This means being respectful of users who aren't even using Microsoft products!
Shocking that Microsoft failed at something that explicitly required not stomping on others.
The parent submission was a mistake.
There's one little catch: Sirius and XM are technically very different. Their signals and encodings are different. An XM receiver has to be able to read a signal from a satellite way down south in geosynchronous orbit, while Sirius uses multiple satellites in funky orbits such that there's always one fairly high in the sky. An XM receiver only listens to half of the total bandwidth at once, but a Sirius receiver listens to everything it can.
I'd love to see the redundancy go away, but I think the two systems are too different for that to happen unless either (1) one of them is shut down and the other expands to use the freed spectrum or (2) current receivers are replaced with intrinsically more expensive dual-system receivers--without the downward price pressure of the competition that existed before the merger.
Does anyone know if the first scenario could work with existing receivers? I remember something about a deadline by which Sirius and XM were to have been required to only sell receivers that were compatible with both systems, in order to remove that barrier to competition (because back before Bush the U.S. had these things called "anti-trust laws"). This, and the fact that the two systems are in adjacent chunks of spectrum, would seem to imply that either system could just expand to use the spectrum of the other, and that at least the receivers of one system would still work.
On Sirius, the audio quality of their music-only channels is clearly better than analog FM terrestrial, but the audio quality of their speech channels is absolute crap.
By my figures, excellent-quality human speech takes about 1/8 the bandwidth required for moderately-crappy-quality music (1/2 the number of channels, 1/2 the sampling rate, and double the compression on what remains), and my ear tells me that Sirius probably gives each talk channel less than half of that. If I'm correct, then Sirius could, at will, change all 47 of their regular talk channels (excluding the 18 "traffic & weather" and occasional-use "sports play-by-play" channels) to excellent quality by deleting less than 1/10 of their 68 music-only channels. If I'm incorrect, then all the regular talk channels could still at least change to good, perfectly-acceptable quality at the expense of 1/10 of their music channels.
Since I only use the service to get through weekend nights, when my two local (and generally excellent) public stations are less than enthralling, it's sad that I end up finding podcasts instead just because the audio quality is better.
The Stanford camera uses a dense array of micro-cameras with one main objective lens for large scans, or for macro, just the array without said lens. Apple's patent filing is for a much larger (physically), sparser array in an integral camera-display--a display and compound camera made of micro-cameras interspersed with the pixels in a display.
One would expect that Apple's method could provide similar z-axis data, no?
Oops. That should be "then 14 M$ would be good for sixteen hours of R&D."
Smart is not the same as not evil, but I'll take intelligent evil over a well-intentioned idiot any day. Intelligent people, good or evil, are reasonably predictable, and such evil can be countered. Stupid people are terrifically creative in ways that reasonable people cannot foresee, so when they're (often) effectively evil, intentionally or not, reasonable, good people can't see it coming to counter it.
Fourteen million dollars!?
That's 7/1000 of what the U.S. spend on oil per day, or 1.9×10^5 or nineteen millionths of what they spend on oil in a year.
It's a whole 9.7 minutes of crude.
Gee, thanks mister! If the next several thousand people are so generous, I can buy a whole piece of candy!
I think that in a developed economy, 1% as much spent on R&D for alternative energy as on crude oil is laughably little. If one were to accept this 1% pittance as reasonable, however, then 14 M$ would be good for an hour and a half of R&D.
Whale reproduction normally involves a cow.
What could they have possibly been thinking to use GoDaddy (with a record of this sort of behavior) as the registrar for this domain?
Those in positions of power must not have the same protections as those who are powerless.
1: The position of police officer is a position of great power.
2: The position of police officer is extremely attractive to sociopaths.
3: Some (many) police agencies are--umm--less than perfect at filtering out these especially-eager applicants. Some departments do not filter at all (i.e. they don't perform personality inventories on applicants), with the obvious results. Given that non-sociopaths generally strongly dislike working with sociopaths, it stands to reason that these departments quickly become dominated by the latter. I've lived in city with a police department that did not test its applicants for mental disorders, and that's a large part of the reason I now live in a city with a police department that does.
4: It does not make sense to give a person in a position of power all the protections that are afforded to others. For those in a position to cause suffering to members of society, the interest of the society in preventing abuse clearly outweighs the interest of the individual. (If you want all the usual job protections, don't pursue a job that lets you hurt people.)
Yes, some police officers will be treated unfairly in such a forum. Some will be publicly embarrassed when they don't deserve it. If the forum is effective, some will lose their jobs when they shouldn't. I would think it would even make undercover operations more difficult. All these issues are far outweighed by the benefit of exposing those who should not be allowed to be in positions of power.
When it's light later in the evenings, people drive more.
People use cars in the mornings to get to work, and that doesn't change with lack of daylight.
While the new rules expanding daylight saving time had been promoted as environmentally beneficial, the promoters only claimed it was to reduce home energy consumption (as electricity and heating fuel). The new rules were expected to increase total energy consumption as people stayed out later and used their cars more. This has meant a net increase in energy consumption, heavily weighted to increase the consumption of oil.
While an increase in home energy consumption may surprise some, the increase in oil consumption is no surprise; it's exactly what the legislation was intended to do.