It doesn't have to be costly. Cinder blocks and steel plates? Bullshit. A simply copper or other metal mesh around the walls and ceilings (and under the carpet, if it's not at ground level) would stop those signals. Hell, fine chicken wire would probably work.
A friend of mine has a screened in building on the lake. It's sort of a dock/boathouse with a bar and such that he built. Quite nice. After he built it, he found that cellphones stopped working on the inside. No reception at all. Same went for his satellite radio. And he used nothing more than off the shelf metal screens around the walls.
Passively blocking cell phone reception is not hard or expensive at all.
You do realize that if a cell phone causes interference on a device, then some asshole using a jammer would cause a lot more interference on that same device, right?
Modern cell phones are designed to be able to cut through normal interference. A jammer works by generating so much short range radio noise that the cell phone can't cut through it.
Do you know how much disruption rule enforcement would cause? In the short term, quite a bit. In the long term, a lot less than not enforcing the rules causes.
If somebody is breaking the rules then it is NOT acceptable to take those rules into your own hands and forcibly prevent it. Jamming signals does exactly that. If you're jamming signals, then you're basically giving a big "fuck you" to everybody else who DOES play by the rules.
People who put their phones on vibrate and walk out if there's a call they have to take are playing by the rules. They are actively trying not to inconvenience you. The problem is that a jammer is not selective, it fucks over everybody. You don't have the right to do that.
Not to mention all the other problems caused by somebody carrying a device that spews random radio signals on specific frequencies to intentionally disrupt communications. Radio devices designed to create interference are illegal for a damn good reason.
The actual approach in the algorithm is to iterate, with each iteration getting closer to the final step. However, the magic constant sets the starting point for this iteration so close that iterating is not actually required unless you want a lot more (unnecessary) accuracy.
I'm sorry, but there is no moral or logical justification for the argument that, because a non-essential item of goods is over-priced, you are entitled to steal it.
He wasn't making a point about "entitlement" or "rights". We live in the real world here. And in the real world, this is how people behave. Failure to recognize and adapt to this fact means that you lose sales. If a thing is overpriced for its perceived value, then people will either a) steal it or b) go to an alternative. Either way, you lose potential sales.
Overpricing an item means loss of profit. The RIAA has not woken up to this fact yet, they still seem to be focusing on profit per item instead of total profit.
there are few things lower than trolling slashdot for reference points.
True, however, his link was not a referrer link. The "ref" in Amazon URL's is actually their way of tracking how people move around their site. Go to a few amazon pages and check out the normal links. You'll see that most of the links on the page have the same "ref" code and it changes depending on where you are in the site. So they can track how people browse the site.
Citing Wikipedia? You can do better. How about an actual scientific paper instead of something made by users who likely are just as wrong as the original poster?
Suffice it to say that Wikipedia is wrong, yet again. Any decent physics class would tell you so.
However, "rights" cannot be stolen either. They can be infringed upon. You can violate somebody's rights, you can even deprive them of their rights.
But rights are not physical objects. Those rights only exist in the first place because we, as a society, have agreed not to violate them. Violation of them is not "theft", it is breaking a societal agreement.
Sure thing, except that the real explanation is that the car is made of metal and it acts as a Faraday cage, that's why you don't fry in a car if hit by lightning.
Actually, that's not correct either.
The real explanation is that a car is a big wide chunk of metal and that metal provides a better path to ground than the path which happens to go through your soft fleshy tissues.
For it to be a Faraday cage, it would have to be sealed or having only small holes (with their size depending on the frequency of the EM radiation you're wanting to block). Considering that you've got big chunks of glass instead of metal in it, a Faraday cage it definitely is not. Proof: You can pick up radio signals inside the car. A Faraday cage would not be able to get those, even with an external antenna and wires leading into the cage.
Sorry for being pedantic, but this is/. after all...
I hadn't heard of it before, so I checked it out. Appearantly, their latest device does just what you said. There's two SSID's, one of which uses an encrypted connection and is your "private" connection. The other is open to the public.
It's an interesting idea, but their site needs work. I tried to use the map to find access points and I couldn't make heads or tails out of it. It's a machup with Google Maps and seemingly works, but there's weird inconsistancies and it's hard to use in general.
Yeah, but a bot attack disbling security updates would really screw with a corporate environment.
Not as much as you'd think. Corporate Windows systems generally have updates disabled anyway, at least from Microsoft. The whole Windows Update system was designed to allow corps to run their own update server, so that they could a) pick and choose what updates they want to go to what boxes and b) use the mechanism to not only install their own software, but to prevent modification to the software. The corporate boxen rigged this way don't talk back to Microsoft at all, they talk to their own in-house update system.
What's really funny about HeadOn is that it doesn't actually work, at all. It contains no actual medicine of any kind, or not enough to actually matter. It's homeopathic nonsense, meaning that lower dosages of actual working ingredients are considered better, somehow.
So yes, that's right, they're selling wax in a tube to rub on your forehead to relieve your headaches.
I can't recall the last employer I had that didn't indiscriminately block long distance calls without the keying in of a personal code that would tie the person making the call to the call.
That's insanity. I can't envision an employer doing that. I'd certainly quit. Not because I make long distance calls, but because I wouldn't want to work for anybody so insane.
Season 2 of Doctor Who aired a few months ago. Not in the US, I grant you.
They've already filmed the Christmas episode for this year, and are starting filming on Season 3 now, but I'm pretty certain that it will be a 13 episode season once again.
Most car AC units have an energy coefficiency of somewhere around 400% - for every one watt of power used four watts of heat are removed. So having greater than 100% isn't impossible.
No, AC units (heat pumps) are not more than 100% efficent. This sort of incorrect statement is a mistake of terminology.
A heating unit has a "Coefficent of Performance" (aka COP), which describes the ratio of heat output to the energy input. A resistive heater (say, your toaster) has a COP of exactly 1. Every bit of power going into it comes out of it as heat.
Your heat pump (a car AC unit is just a heat pump, pumping heat out of the car) has a COP of 3 or 4, thus leading to the "400% efficent" terminology. It's not 400% efficent, it's just 4 times better as producing heat (or rather, moving heat from one area to another) than a resistive heater would be. The reason is can do this is that moving heat around requires a lot less work than producing it does.
My point is that the terminology is not comparable. This sort of thing is claiming to produce energy without doing work, or at least, to produce more energy than the amount of work actually put into it. Not really the same thing at all.
Sheesh, people. I didn't say BitTorrent was illegal.
The guy I replied to was talking about illegally downloading copyrighted material through BitTorrent. That's already illegal. Making it more illegal stops nothing.
It's important to constantly remind of the legitemate uses becauses otherwise the RIAA will pass a law banning all torrents within America which will then be pressured onto Democracies who apparently have elected Bush to determine our laws.
There's so much wrong with that sentence...
a) The RIAA doesn't pass laws. They may buy lawmakers, but that's not the same thing.
b) You cannot "ban all torrents within America" or anywhere else by simply passing laws. It's already illegal, exactly how would making it "more illegal" stop it?
c) Everything after the word "America" in your sentence makes absolutely no sense and is just ranting against Bush for some reason.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Bush either, but at least I'm capable of expressing why in appropriate ways.
Except that for many of us, there's a HUGE difference between believing the findings of rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific exploration, and believing the (highly interpreted) word of some guys who lived 2000 years ago. "The same leap of faith"? I think not.
But for the average citizen, that difference isn't as huge. Whether it's wise guys in lab coats or guys that they've been told were wise who lived 2000 years ago, it's all the same to some people.
You and I understand science. The average citizen does not.
Yes, the filesystem supports gigantic filenames, and yes, quite a lot of Windows supports those big filenames as well.
However, there's a lot of backward compatibility in the built in libraries, and a lot of this backward compatibility does *not* handle those long paths nicely. What's worse is that by not deprecating a lot of this functionality, most apps written for Windows still use these older calls. It's all tied in with Unicode and all the multi-byte string handling stuff as well.
This is one reason why developing for Windows kinda sucks, because while it's really easy to pop out a program quickly, it's very difficult to do it right and use only functionality that handles everything new and still maintains backward compatibility as well.
It doesn't help that a lot of Windows itself is written using the older functionality, thus making some parts handle really long filenames fine and other parts of it... err.. not so fine.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't have to be costly. Cinder blocks and steel plates? Bullshit. A simply copper or other metal mesh around the walls and ceilings (and under the carpet, if it's not at ground level) would stop those signals. Hell, fine chicken wire would probably work.
A friend of mine has a screened in building on the lake. It's sort of a dock/boathouse with a bar and such that he built. Quite nice. After he built it, he found that cellphones stopped working on the inside. No reception at all. Same went for his satellite radio. And he used nothing more than off the shelf metal screens around the walls.
Passively blocking cell phone reception is not hard or expensive at all.
You do realize that if a cell phone causes interference on a device, then some asshole using a jammer would cause a lot more interference on that same device, right?
Modern cell phones are designed to be able to cut through normal interference. A jammer works by generating so much short range radio noise that the cell phone can't cut through it.
In the long term, a lot less than not enforcing the rules causes.
If somebody is breaking the rules then it is NOT acceptable to take those rules into your own hands and forcibly prevent it. Jamming signals does exactly that. If you're jamming signals, then you're basically giving a big "fuck you" to everybody else who DOES play by the rules.
People who put their phones on vibrate and walk out if there's a call they have to take are playing by the rules. They are actively trying not to inconvenience you. The problem is that a jammer is not selective, it fucks over everybody. You don't have the right to do that.
Not to mention all the other problems caused by somebody carrying a device that spews random radio signals on specific frequencies to intentionally disrupt communications. Radio devices designed to create interference are illegal for a damn good reason.
The actual approach in the algorithm is to iterate, with each iteration getting closer to the final step. However, the magic constant sets the starting point for this iteration so close that iterating is not actually required unless you want a lot more (unnecessary) accuracy.
I'm sorry, but there is no moral or logical justification for the argument that, because a non-essential item of goods is over-priced, you are entitled to steal it.
He wasn't making a point about "entitlement" or "rights". We live in the real world here. And in the real world, this is how people behave. Failure to recognize and adapt to this fact means that you lose sales. If a thing is overpriced for its perceived value, then people will either a) steal it or b) go to an alternative. Either way, you lose potential sales.
Overpricing an item means loss of profit. The RIAA has not woken up to this fact yet, they still seem to be focusing on profit per item instead of total profit.
there are few things lower than trolling slashdot for reference points.
i ent/dp/B000ICL3KG/sr=1-3/qid=1158270805/tag=ottode struct-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
True, however, his link was not a referrer link. The "ref" in Amazon URL's is actually their way of tracking how people move around their site. Go to a few amazon pages and check out the normal links. You'll see that most of the links on the page have the same "ref" code and it changes depending on where you are in the site. So they can track how people browse the site.
A true Amazon affiliate link looks like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Incomven
The important thing in a Amazon link is the "tag=whatever". That's how they do referral/affiliate codes.
They need to be careful and be sure the Rebels don't get ahold of those plans.
After all, that's no moon.
Citing Wikipedia? You can do better. How about an actual scientific paper instead of something made by users who likely are just as wrong as the original poster?
Suffice it to say that Wikipedia is wrong, yet again. Any decent physics class would tell you so.
Actually, no, the same mechanism does NOT underlie both explanations. A Faraday cage operates on a completely different principle.
However, "rights" cannot be stolen either. They can be infringed upon. You can violate somebody's rights, you can even deprive them of their rights.
But rights are not physical objects. Those rights only exist in the first place because we, as a society, have agreed not to violate them. Violation of them is not "theft", it is breaking a societal agreement.
Sure thing, except that the real explanation is that the car is made of metal and it acts as a Faraday cage, that's why you don't fry in a car if hit by lightning.
/. after all...
Actually, that's not correct either.
The real explanation is that a car is a big wide chunk of metal and that metal provides a better path to ground than the path which happens to go through your soft fleshy tissues.
For it to be a Faraday cage, it would have to be sealed or having only small holes (with their size depending on the frequency of the EM radiation you're wanting to block). Considering that you've got big chunks of glass instead of metal in it, a Faraday cage it definitely is not. Proof: You can pick up radio signals inside the car. A Faraday cage would not be able to get those, even with an external antenna and wires leading into the cage.
Sorry for being pedantic, but this is
Silly Christians, always peeved at everything. Relax, man. Don't be so uptight.
I hadn't heard of it before, so I checked it out. Appearantly, their latest device does just what you said. There's two SSID's, one of which uses an encrypted connection and is your "private" connection. The other is open to the public.
It's an interesting idea, but their site needs work. I tried to use the map to find access points and I couldn't make heads or tails out of it. It's a machup with Google Maps and seemingly works, but there's weird inconsistancies and it's hard to use in general.
Yeah, but a bot attack disbling security updates would really screw with a corporate environment.
Not as much as you'd think. Corporate Windows systems generally have updates disabled anyway, at least from Microsoft. The whole Windows Update system was designed to allow corps to run their own update server, so that they could a) pick and choose what updates they want to go to what boxes and b) use the mechanism to not only install their own software, but to prevent modification to the software. The corporate boxen rigged this way don't talk back to Microsoft at all, they talk to their own in-house update system.
What's really funny about HeadOn is that it doesn't actually work, at all. It contains no actual medicine of any kind, or not enough to actually matter. It's homeopathic nonsense, meaning that lower dosages of actual working ingredients are considered better, somehow.
So yes, that's right, they're selling wax in a tube to rub on your forehead to relieve your headaches.
Or write up a quick script to cut the images in half down the middle and save them as a series of other images.
I can't recall the last employer I had that didn't indiscriminately block long distance calls without the keying in of a personal code that would tie the person making the call to the call.
That's insanity. I can't envision an employer doing that. I'd certainly quit. Not because I make long distance calls, but because I wouldn't want to work for anybody so insane.
Season 2 of Doctor Who aired a few months ago. Not in the US, I grant you.
They've already filmed the Christmas episode for this year, and are starting filming on Season 3 now, but I'm pretty certain that it will be a 13 episode season once again.
Not just you, but three posters total said "it puts out light too".
;)
Yes, it puts out light and sound and such. So let's say that it's 99.99999% efficent then.
Sheesh, you pedantic bastards...
Most car AC units have an energy coefficiency of somewhere around 400% - for every one watt of power used four watts of heat are removed. So having greater than 100% isn't impossible.
No, AC units (heat pumps) are not more than 100% efficent. This sort of incorrect statement is a mistake of terminology.
A heating unit has a "Coefficent of Performance" (aka COP), which describes the ratio of heat output to the energy input. A resistive heater (say, your toaster) has a COP of exactly 1. Every bit of power going into it comes out of it as heat.
Your heat pump (a car AC unit is just a heat pump, pumping heat out of the car) has a COP of 3 or 4, thus leading to the "400% efficent" terminology. It's not 400% efficent, it's just 4 times better as producing heat (or rather, moving heat from one area to another) than a resistive heater would be. The reason is can do this is that moving heat around requires a lot less work than producing it does.
My point is that the terminology is not comparable. This sort of thing is claiming to produce energy without doing work, or at least, to produce more energy than the amount of work actually put into it. Not really the same thing at all.
Sheesh, people. I didn't say BitTorrent was illegal.
The guy I replied to was talking about illegally downloading copyrighted material through BitTorrent. That's already illegal. Making it more illegal stops nothing.
It's important to constantly remind of the legitemate uses becauses otherwise the RIAA will pass a law banning all torrents within America which will then be pressured onto Democracies who apparently have elected Bush to determine our laws.
There's so much wrong with that sentence...
a) The RIAA doesn't pass laws. They may buy lawmakers, but that's not the same thing.
b) You cannot "ban all torrents within America" or anywhere else by simply passing laws. It's already illegal, exactly how would making it "more illegal" stop it?
c) Everything after the word "America" in your sentence makes absolutely no sense and is just ranting against Bush for some reason.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Bush either, but at least I'm capable of expressing why in appropriate ways.
Except that for many of us, there's a HUGE difference between believing the findings of rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific exploration, and believing the (highly interpreted) word of some guys who lived 2000 years ago. "The same leap of faith"? I think not.
But for the average citizen, that difference isn't as huge. Whether it's wise guys in lab coats or guys that they've been told were wise who lived 2000 years ago, it's all the same to some people.
You and I understand science. The average citizen does not.
Yes, because robots take old people's medicines and eat them for fuel.
Yes, the filesystem supports gigantic filenames, and yes, quite a lot of Windows supports those big filenames as well.
However, there's a lot of backward compatibility in the built in libraries, and a lot of this backward compatibility does *not* handle those long paths nicely. What's worse is that by not deprecating a lot of this functionality, most apps written for Windows still use these older calls. It's all tied in with Unicode and all the multi-byte string handling stuff as well.
This is one reason why developing for Windows kinda sucks, because while it's really easy to pop out a program quickly, it's very difficult to do it right and use only functionality that handles everything new and still maintains backward compatibility as well.
It doesn't help that a lot of Windows itself is written using the older functionality, thus making some parts handle really long filenames fine and other parts of it... err.. not so fine.