There is NO reliable way of communicating with land from the middle of the ocean (or more than about 50 miles offshore) via shortwave.
The only alternative solution are HF radios, which require an FCC license, require an antenna around 80 feet in length (the backstay of a sailboat is commonly insulated to use as an HF antenna), and provides very slow data-only service which is relayed to the global telephone or internet via regular users on shore (security issues, etc).
An Iridium or Inmarsat satphone setup is the ONLY viable solution for open-water shipping, unless you are within 50 miles of a repeater or base station.
Well, roughly 2% of US households are not covered by traditional cell service. It's more like 5% in Canada.
That is about 9 million people in the US and Canada that cannot get cell coverage at their home. They are often people who own a great deal of land, so, presumably, they would be potential sat phone customers.
You could get around the need for high power by setting up local receivers that bounce the signal to the satellites or even through the normal land based network! It could result in a revolutionary improvement to global communications!
I think you're being sarcastic.
However, if you're not. That's called a cell phone. Congrats.:-P
You know, everyone I know likes SGU. But then again, they all disliked SG-1, because it was campy to the point of cheese, but without actually playing to it. It was like... campy, but pretending to be all serious.
I mean seriously.... I've seen like 5 episodes and there is always some mad super villain wearing a giant metal helmet shaped like some Egyptian hat living in an underground fire lair dungeon, orbiting a planet who is about to explode.
Sometimes the super villain changes. They always get captured 15 minutes into the episode, and then rescued 42 minutes into the episode and the hero is always ignoring prudent advice and doing something extremely dumb, yet he always gets lucky and nothing happens to him.
I know it existed in the 1970s. You could buy it in the back room of bookstores in Manhattan, apparently.
But wasn't most child porn distributed via USENET? How does one go about paying for distributed copies of base7 encoded binary files? And if there was no money being exchanged, should it be legal?
Should snuff films also be legal to own, in your view?
They are. In fact, realistic (simulated, of course) death is a regular part of our culture. CREATING a snuff film is certainly illegal, but possessing one is not and has never been, despite people's mistaken assumptions.
The reason that child pornography is illegal to own is that it does encourage the production of child pornography. I believe that the laws prohibiting possession of child pornography have been shown to reduce the production of same.
Citation needed. I have never heard such a thing. I'm calling shenagins unless you can produce evidence.
Hopefully we can agree that abusing children and forcing six year olds into sexual situations is bad, and reducing the occurrence of said abuse is good.
Yeah, for sure, but does this? I mean other than "well yeah, sure, think about it". I've seen a couple of discussions about this and the conclusion is usually "uhm, we have no idea, really, so might as well do it".
Which seems to me to be an error prone approach (albeit understandable).
While I ripped blair one in another post, I gotta agree here.
Advertising viewership is one thing.
Collecting, organizing, cataloguing, storing and disseminating every scrap of personal information possible on your habits, schedule and just about anything else, is entirely something else.
People accept it because it is invisible and they are too complacent to disagree.
However, the government has become nearly as insidious, with mass domestic wiretapping and security schemes that do little to add to the overall safety and a lot to demean citizens and their right to privacy.
lemme guess, you're over 35 and live in the midwest of the US. Probably Minnesota or Wisconsin, likely not in a large city (or you recently moved from one of those places).
You certainly grew up there.
No, I didn't steal this information from your cookies.:-P
One could argue that by legally entering a privacy contract with the end user, that they are legally unable to comply with the subpoena. Kinda like a catholic priest refusing to give testimony over a confession he has heard.
No, one could not say that. One would be in violation of contempt of court and possibly an accessory to the crime.
The law states that a subpoena overrules ALL other private agreements. The ONLY exception is medical, legal (lawyers) and religious privacy, and those can often be stretched pretty thin by an aggressive prosecutor.
The point is that you may only have one recognized marriage in terms of social structures and tax policies... great. the IRS (and states) can refuse to recognize multiple marriages (just like they don't recognize gay marriage today).
But right now, in most states, it's a felony on the same level as forcible rape, to have two wives.
Actually, Canada's health restrictions are much tighter than the US. The "reject" food products from Canada are regularly sent to places like Texas who don't give a damn about the levels of mercury or cobalt in their food.
In fact, not that long ago, Mexico rejected all lettuce shipments from the US for having absurd levels of several toxic minerals. The lettuce was turned around and sold at California and Arizona stores, because the US standards on food safety aren't as high in many areas.
But regardless, drugs from Canada are substantially cheaper, even with roughly identical composition. In some cases, drugs made from the same damn plant and exported, are subsequently grossly cheaper in Canada. This has to do with our shitty health insurance system, our ass backwards system of patent royalties and a few other similar things, and little to do with perceived "drug quality".
The higher price is not a case of "because we must" but rather "because we can".
Yeah, hmmm The libertarian party is the only one on my ballot that MIGHT have gone down that road, but the wackos also want to sell all the national forests to private companies for logging and sell most publicly funded structures (community centers, etc) for use as whatever brings the most profit, eliminate everything that's not national defense from the budget and put us back in 1840, civilly.
I would honor your suggestions. Please, do give us a viable alternative.
While the Obama administration may be "liberal" when it comes to social service programs (and he's a centrist by global standards), that is really the extent of it. He is FAR to the right of most world leaders on "law and order", war, business regulations, government structures, etc.
The fact that the republicans are even further right doesn't decry "liberalism" but rather just points out the fact that our "democrats" are further right of most countries "conservatives" on most topics, and far from being "communists" (which is just inane, when that is trotted out).
The "liberal" viewpoint is to support communal goods and individual liberty over corporate good and profit EVERY TIME. This is a conservative ideology, even if our democrat centrist (again, by global standards) government is in favor of it.
Sorry, if you're referring to the 90%+ of professors of hard sciences as "stupid... dumb people"
By all means continue to consider yourself in the unique 5% of "smart" people. *snicker*
Al Gore did absolutely nothing to sway my opinion. Rather, the 480-some empirical, peer-reviewed studies did that that. Al Gore was more of a liability than a spokesperson, if you ask me, because he was uninformed and made it SOUND like he was talking out his ass, even if the data was actually there, he couldn't express it very well.
Now, if your opinion is based on Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck, you're similarly ill-informed as someone who simply believed Al Gore.
And Rush Limbaugh isn't going to win any Nobel Prize for his drivel.:-)
Water is a poor replacement for putting out fires that are most often electrical in nature.
Something like 95% of the server rooms I've been in (about 300 in the last five years) uses either a halon or halon replacement, or one of the new aerosol potassium systems. The places that have water systems have frequently told me about accidental discharges, leaks, condensation, etc.
Frankly, I've only heard of one server room fire, but I've heard of 15 or 20 accidental discharges of the fire suppression system. I would favor a system that doesn't destroy everything OR kill anyone when accidentally discharged. The new potassium aerosol systems seem to fit that bill.
Raised floors is probably excessive, but redundant power, redundant disk, redundant backbone uplinks... Off-site backup... You need to maintain firewall rules and IPS signatures if you want half decent security, and possibly a webapp firewall if you're running complex apps and want more security controls.
You're talking $80-$100k initial investment to "do it right" and $10k to get a "stick it in the coat closet, don't care if its broken sometimes" attitude. Plus, say, another $3k-$10k/yr in administration.
I would say the average business running a single server would require a VERY VERY pressing reason to have on-site web hosting if they value their uptime and data.
$1000 per year for a business class 4-hour change-response and 99.99% uptime SLA is expensive. It would likely be less, even hosting hundreds of gigs of data. It would get you the service of a $50k outlay in-house. Why the hell would you pay 50x more, just to have to support it yourself? Think about that.
Slashdot Mirror
There is NO reliable way of communicating with land from the middle of the ocean (or more than about 50 miles offshore) via shortwave.
The only alternative solution are HF radios, which require an FCC license, require an antenna around 80 feet in length (the backstay of a sailboat is commonly insulated to use as an HF antenna), and provides very slow data-only service which is relayed to the global telephone or internet via regular users on shore (security issues, etc).
An Iridium or Inmarsat satphone setup is the ONLY viable solution for open-water shipping, unless you are within 50 miles of a repeater or base station.
Well, roughly 2% of US households are not covered by traditional cell service. It's more like 5% in Canada.
That is about 9 million people in the US and Canada that cannot get cell coverage at their home. They are often people who own a great deal of land, so, presumably, they would be potential sat phone customers.
Does that count?
You could get around the need for high power by setting up local receivers that bounce the signal to the satellites or even through the normal land based network! It could result in a revolutionary improvement to global communications!
I think you're being sarcastic.
However, if you're not. That's called a cell phone. Congrats. :-P
You know, everyone I know likes SGU. But then again, they all disliked SG-1, because it was campy to the point of cheese, but without actually playing to it. It was like... campy, but pretending to be all serious.
I mean seriously.... I've seen like 5 episodes and there is always some mad super villain wearing a giant metal helmet shaped like some Egyptian hat living in an underground fire lair dungeon, orbiting a planet who is about to explode.
Sometimes the super villain changes. They always get captured 15 minutes into the episode, and then rescued 42 minutes into the episode and the hero is always ignoring prudent advice and doing something extremely dumb, yet he always gets lucky and nothing happens to him.
Shit, where is the tension in that?
the equivalent to arresting citizens for reading classified material on wikileaks.
what an interesting analogy.
People reading the leaks must encourage more leaks. This is actually likely true.
Interesting interesting...
Is there seriously any child porn "industry"?
I know it existed in the 1970s. You could buy it in the back room of bookstores in Manhattan, apparently.
But wasn't most child porn distributed via USENET? How does one go about paying for distributed copies of base7 encoded binary files? And if there was no money being exchanged, should it be legal?
Interesting questions without real answers...
Should snuff films also be legal to own, in your view?
They are. In fact, realistic (simulated, of course) death is a regular part of our culture. CREATING a snuff film is certainly illegal, but possessing one is not and has never been, despite people's mistaken assumptions.
The reason that child pornography is illegal to own is that it does encourage the production of child pornography. I believe that the laws prohibiting possession of child pornography have been shown to reduce the production of same.
Citation needed. I have never heard such a thing. I'm calling shenagins unless you can produce evidence.
Hopefully we can agree that abusing children and forcing six year olds into sexual situations is bad, and reducing the occurrence of said abuse is good.
Yeah, for sure, but does this? I mean other than "well yeah, sure, think about it". I've seen a couple of discussions about this and the conclusion is usually "uhm, we have no idea, really, so might as well do it".
Which seems to me to be an error prone approach (albeit understandable).
If you have ever seen the underground conduit in an urban environment, it's actually a fair bit worse than that.
The simple difference is that we can afford to bury our cables 15 feet underground here in the west (and are generally required to in the city).
Not debating the other points....
While I ripped blair one in another post, I gotta agree here.
Advertising viewership is one thing.
Collecting, organizing, cataloguing, storing and disseminating every scrap of personal information possible on your habits, schedule and just about anything else, is entirely something else.
People accept it because it is invisible and they are too complacent to disagree.
However, the government has become nearly as insidious, with mass domestic wiretapping and security schemes that do little to add to the overall safety and a lot to demean citizens and their right to privacy.
"pities sake" ... "for the love of Pete"?
lemme guess, you're over 35 and live in the midwest of the US. Probably Minnesota or Wisconsin, likely not in a large city (or you recently moved from one of those places).
You certainly grew up there.
No, I didn't steal this information from your cookies. :-P
One could argue that by legally entering a privacy contract with the end user, that they are legally unable to comply with the subpoena. Kinda like a catholic priest refusing to give testimony over a confession he has heard.
No, one could not say that. One would be in violation of contempt of court and possibly an accessory to the crime.
The law states that a subpoena overrules ALL other private agreements. The ONLY exception is medical, legal (lawyers) and religious privacy, and those can often be stretched pretty thin by an aggressive prosecutor.
Agreed.
The point is that you may only have one recognized marriage in terms of social structures and tax policies... great. the IRS (and states) can refuse to recognize multiple marriages (just like they don't recognize gay marriage today).
But right now, in most states, it's a felony on the same level as forcible rape, to have two wives.
That's jacked up.
Actually, Canada's health restrictions are much tighter than the US. The "reject" food products from Canada are regularly sent to places like Texas who don't give a damn about the levels of mercury or cobalt in their food.
In fact, not that long ago, Mexico rejected all lettuce shipments from the US for having absurd levels of several toxic minerals. The lettuce was turned around and sold at California and Arizona stores, because the US standards on food safety aren't as high in many areas.
But regardless, drugs from Canada are substantially cheaper, even with roughly identical composition. In some cases, drugs made from the same damn plant and exported, are subsequently grossly cheaper in Canada. This has to do with our shitty health insurance system, our ass backwards system of patent royalties and a few other similar things, and little to do with perceived "drug quality".
The higher price is not a case of "because we must" but rather "because we can".
I have NEVER understood the problem with polygamy.
Srsly. If three people live together and have 3some sex all the time, and raise a kid (obviously not involving the 3some), what is the problem?
That's not illegal. Nor should it be.
So now, suddenly, those people sign a contract to stay in this arrangement forever, and they've committed a felony? WTF??!?!
Weird ass laws (and/or weird social stigmas).
Ironically, he merely used Afghanistan because it was a convienent hole of lawlessness.
He's Saudi.
He also HATED Iraq (a lot) and probably would have just as happy to bomb Saddam if he had more political clout.
It's nice we did it for him, and vastly enriched his home country in the process of running up the price of oil.
Epic win?
Yeah, hmmm The libertarian party is the only one on my ballot that MIGHT have gone down that road, but the wackos also want to sell all the national forests to private companies for logging and sell most publicly funded structures (community centers, etc) for use as whatever brings the most profit, eliminate everything that's not national defense from the budget and put us back in 1840, civilly.
I would honor your suggestions. Please, do give us a viable alternative.
While the Obama administration may be "liberal" when it comes to social service programs (and he's a centrist by global standards), that is really the extent of it. He is FAR to the right of most world leaders on "law and order", war, business regulations, government structures, etc.
The fact that the republicans are even further right doesn't decry "liberalism" but rather just points out the fact that our "democrats" are further right of most countries "conservatives" on most topics, and far from being "communists" (which is just inane, when that is trotted out).
The "liberal" viewpoint is to support communal goods and individual liberty over corporate good and profit EVERY TIME. This is a conservative ideology, even if our democrat centrist (again, by global standards) government is in favor of it.
Haha.
Sorry, if you're referring to the 90%+ of professors of hard sciences as "stupid... dumb people"
By all means continue to consider yourself in the unique 5% of "smart" people. *snicker*
Al Gore did absolutely nothing to sway my opinion. Rather, the 480-some empirical, peer-reviewed studies did that that. Al Gore was more of a liability than a spokesperson, if you ask me, because he was uninformed and made it SOUND like he was talking out his ass, even if the data was actually there, he couldn't express it very well.
Now, if your opinion is based on Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck, you're similarly ill-informed as someone who simply believed Al Gore.
And Rush Limbaugh isn't going to win any Nobel Prize for his drivel. :-)
Water is a poor replacement for putting out fires that are most often electrical in nature.
Something like 95% of the server rooms I've been in (about 300 in the last five years) uses either a halon or halon replacement, or one of the new aerosol potassium systems. The places that have water systems have frequently told me about accidental discharges, leaks, condensation, etc.
Frankly, I've only heard of one server room fire, but I've heard of 15 or 20 accidental discharges of the fire suppression system. I would favor a system that doesn't destroy everything OR kill anyone when accidentally discharged. The new potassium aerosol systems seem to fit that bill.
Raised floors is probably excessive, but redundant power, redundant disk, redundant backbone uplinks... Off-site backup... You need to maintain firewall rules and IPS signatures if you want half decent security, and possibly a webapp firewall if you're running complex apps and want more security controls.
You're talking $80-$100k initial investment to "do it right" and $10k to get a "stick it in the coat closet, don't care if its broken sometimes" attitude. Plus, say, another $3k-$10k/yr in administration.
I would say the average business running a single server would require a VERY VERY pressing reason to have on-site web hosting if they value their uptime and data.
$1000 per year for a business class 4-hour change-response and 99.99% uptime SLA is expensive. It would likely be less, even hosting hundreds of gigs of data. It would get you the service of a $50k outlay in-house. Why the hell would you pay 50x more, just to have to support it yourself? Think about that.
MS has a free conversion software available that works as a plugin to Office 2003. You should look into that :-)