Get them to put it on either channel 1 or 11 and put your AP on the other one. Seeing as this is a super-easy fix, they shouldn't have a problem with it, but if they do you could blow some smoke with some BS about the FCC guidelines for not interfering and broadcasting with really high-powered radios. They most likely aren't violating any FCC rules, but again, seeing as it's a 5-minute task to change the channel on the router, they'll hopefully be willing to do it.
The principle here is not actual filtration (such as is done by your ceramic filters). It is actually the electrostatic attraction between charged ions. Rather than a lattice structure in which large impurities get "stuck", this is a surface to which impurities adhere. It's like fly-paper, or those cat-hair removers.
Making it into a foam is not designed to trap the impurities, but rather to give the impurities a lot of surface area to stick to. The impurities don't get stuck because they can't find any open path through the material; they get stuck because once they touch the surface, they're stuck.
If the game had a CD key that was verified online and could only be used once, you'd be getting two codes for the price of one. You could install it on two computers - say, yours and your friend's. All you'd have to do is return it and claim it was defective.
It's quite easy to understand why they'd be disinclined to let someone exchange an opened box for an unopened one.
Posting someone else's Steam ID would get you banned from the forum, if that person hadn't bought the game. It does not get their Steam ID blacklisted.
Sounds like they're combining the properties of both a cationic and anionic polymer with the idea of maximizing the surface area on which the adhesion occurs (similar to activated carbon).
Basically, in layman's terms... most things that dissolve in water form ions (either positively or negatively charged), which can be removed by their electrostatic adhesion to oppositely-charged ions. According to TFA, this polymer foam has both positively and negatively charged ions at its surface for the dissolved ions to adhere to (perhaps someone with more knowledge of organic chemistry could tell me if this is fairly unique? I've never heard of a polymer which was both cationic and anionic). Since the ions actually cling to its surface, the surface area should be maximized (the principle behind an activated carbon filter), which in this case they're doing by making it into a foam.
I see Magic Eyes backwards - the image sinks in instead of popping out. So disappointing.
That's because you're crossing your eyes instead of diverging them. It takes a while to master either technique. Cross-eyed viewing is harder to master for most people, especially with Magic Eye style images with repetitive patterns, so they're designed for the divergent-eyed viewing technique. Most people find the divergent-eyed viewing technique slightly easier. However, the cross-eyed viewing technique allows viewing much larger stereoscopic images, since you can only diverge your eyes so far.
I can only diverge my eyes enough to achieve an inch or two of overlap on my computer screen, but cross-eyed I can overlap two side-by-side images each of which are half the width of the screen (e.g. use the cross-eyed method to view this stereoscopic image displayed full-screen).
The pixel remains lit (saying "the pixel remains lit" is a simplification, I know, but irrelevant to the discussion) after it's supposed to.
What are these real-life "pixels" of which you speak, which don't stay lit all the time? Perhaps you've spent so much time under fluorescent lights that you've forgotten that the sun isn't a strobe light.
The problem with LCD displays is that persistence of vision blurs the image if the pixels stay lit all the time. I.e. the problem is in the eyes/brain, not the LCD display. Since movies are already blurry due to the physical limitations of the video camera, persistence of vision makes them too blurry. Strobing the output compensates. (You could just as easily say that the problem is the video cameras, but the one place the problem definitely isn't is the LCD.)
You're sort of missing a key point - until they had the body, they had no conclusive proof that she was dead. But your overall point is correct; even if she was only considered missing he would still be a suspect, so it's a moot point really.
pretty much by definition, where a trial proceeds through appeals, it's because the existing body of law and precedent do not provide a clear rule on who's right and who's wrong, and so the process works to generate a final ruling... But this idea you seem to have that the legal system is simply corrupt is just... tremendously illustrative, perhaps, about how the hacker mindset deals badly with non-deterministic systems.
You appear to think that the legal system behaves non-deterministically only when the law and precedent is ambiguous.
Well, you've obviously never been ticketed for an offense you didn't commit or had police violate your rights.
So total out of pocket costs to him is ZERO plus a nice tax deduction for a donation to the EFF.
Wouldn't he have to pay taxes on all of the money that was donated anyway? Writing off the tax deduction for the portion that he donated to the EFF would only partially offset that, as he'd only have to pay taxes on the money he didn't donate.
If you read the list you posted, those things are already illegal anyway
The whole point of the case was that he had done those things because he believed (and still believes) that they are not against the law.
Had he won, it would have set legal precedent that they are in fact not against the law. Had he lost, it would have set precedent that they are illegal, and since he was convinced that he was inevitably going to lose he chose to settle and avoid setting that precedent.
Setting precedent only happens when the judge is ruling on something not covered either by existing law or prior precedent. They don't get to just make shit up. And if they do, there's several layers of appeals courts that routinely revisit and overturn the rulings of judges.
Court cases cost money. Lots of money. Appeals cost even more money. Unless you can find someone with extremely deep pockets to back you, you just lose and pay whatever penalty gets dished out. And judges aren't accountable to anyone if their decision does get overturned higher up.
Hackers have trouble dealing with the legal system because they can't handle the apparent ambiguity of the process and the results.
No shit, Sherlock. Not even all of the justices of the Supreme Court can typically agree on the legal issues with which they're faced. When the highest court in the land is divided in their opinions on really important cases, what hope do you have of getting the desired outcome in your petty little case?
I actually have trouble understanding why hackers just completely lose their shit when the law is involved. It's an interesting and complex system that any real hacker should relish understanding and, well, hacking.
Wrong because of what you said shortly thereafter:
I actually argued with a linux kernel dev who refused to accept the verdict even after Reiser led the police to the body, because he couldn't understand how a guilty verdict was reached in the trial. He actually said "the investigation was flawed, and couldn't logically produce Reiser as a suspect, therefore the trial was flawed and the guilty verdict wrong."
"Hacking" the legal system doesn't work if the judge doesn't care. Yes, maybe the judge should release you on a technicality that you cleverly discovered, but if he/she doesn't, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
"Hacking" a system is only possible when it always follows its own rules. Judges are allowed to make up the interpretations of rules as they go. It's called setting precedent.
Isn't it possible that the judge correctly decided that you were an abrasive, unlikable person
Oh dear, holding someone to the due responsibility of their position and expecting them to carry out their duties lawfully makes me abrasive and unlikable...
Along the same line of reasoning, at the moment I buy a device, I am free to choose to reverse-engineer it and publish the findings.
Not true - you'd violate copyright, and anyone building their own device based on your findings would undoubtedly violate multiple patents. However, a private key is neither patentable nor copyrightable.
Actually it belongs to the copyright holders, whether that be some giant music conglomerate, or an individual artist or group.
That's a fairly meaningless distinction. The record companies are the licensed representatives for the artists they've signed, and the RIAA is a trust composed of representatives from the record companies.
There's a few different names... I think they're typically just called ROM readers or ROM dumping utilities, or just about any EEPROM programmer would also be able to read back the contents of ROM/EEPROM chips. You'd probably be better off asking on a hardware hacking forum, as the method of reading a ROM depends upon the exact type of ROM chip you're trying to access. (Pin layouts are different, voltages are different, etc. - getting it wrong can damage the chip, or the reading device.) I did find this, which lists a ROM programmer presumably compatible with the EEPROM chips in automobile computers (automobile hardware hackers reverse-engineer the code running in their auto's on-board computer and load it with custom chipsets to tweak things like fuel injection, etc.)... you'd really have to search for a reader for the specific type of ROM chip you're trying to access, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Get them to put it on either channel 1 or 11 and put your AP on the other one. Seeing as this is a super-easy fix, they shouldn't have a problem with it, but if they do you could blow some smoke with some BS about the FCC guidelines for not interfering and broadcasting with really high-powered radios. They most likely aren't violating any FCC rules, but again, seeing as it's a 5-minute task to change the channel on the router, they'll hopefully be willing to do it.
Just nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
The principle here is not actual filtration (such as is done by your ceramic filters). It is actually the electrostatic attraction between charged ions. Rather than a lattice structure in which large impurities get "stuck", this is a surface to which impurities adhere. It's like fly-paper, or those cat-hair removers.
Making it into a foam is not designed to trap the impurities, but rather to give the impurities a lot of surface area to stick to. The impurities don't get stuck because they can't find any open path through the material; they get stuck because once they touch the surface, they're stuck.
If the game had a CD key that was verified online and could only be used once, you'd be getting two codes for the price of one. You could install it on two computers - say, yours and your friend's. All you'd have to do is return it and claim it was defective.
It's quite easy to understand why they'd be disinclined to let someone exchange an opened box for an unopened one.
Posting someone else's Steam ID would get you banned from the forum, if that person hadn't bought the game. It does not get their Steam ID blacklisted.
Sounds like they're combining the properties of both a cationic and anionic polymer with the idea of maximizing the surface area on which the adhesion occurs (similar to activated carbon).
Basically, in layman's terms... most things that dissolve in water form ions (either positively or negatively charged), which can be removed by their electrostatic adhesion to oppositely-charged ions. According to TFA, this polymer foam has both positively and negatively charged ions at its surface for the dissolved ions to adhere to (perhaps someone with more knowledge of organic chemistry could tell me if this is fairly unique? I've never heard of a polymer which was both cationic and anionic). Since the ions actually cling to its surface, the surface area should be maximized (the principle behind an activated carbon filter), which in this case they're doing by making it into a foam.
Yeah, because 240 fps / 24 fps != 2 either.
No... it just doesn't have enough blood.
I see Magic Eyes backwards - the image sinks in instead of popping out. So disappointing.
That's because you're crossing your eyes instead of diverging them. It takes a while to master either technique. Cross-eyed viewing is harder to master for most people, especially with Magic Eye style images with repetitive patterns, so they're designed for the divergent-eyed viewing technique. Most people find the divergent-eyed viewing technique slightly easier. However, the cross-eyed viewing technique allows viewing much larger stereoscopic images, since you can only diverge your eyes so far.
I can only diverge my eyes enough to achieve an inch or two of overlap on my computer screen, but cross-eyed I can overlap two side-by-side images each of which are half the width of the screen (e.g. use the cross-eyed method to view this stereoscopic image displayed full-screen).
Perhaps "multiple still images" (displayed in rapid succession) is slightly more nausea/eye-strain-inducing in 3D than it is in 2D.
The pixel remains lit (saying "the pixel remains lit" is a simplification, I know, but irrelevant to the discussion) after it's supposed to.
What are these real-life "pixels" of which you speak, which don't stay lit all the time? Perhaps you've spent so much time under fluorescent lights that you've forgotten that the sun isn't a strobe light.
The problem with LCD displays is that persistence of vision blurs the image if the pixels stay lit all the time. I.e. the problem is in the eyes/brain, not the LCD display. Since movies are already blurry due to the physical limitations of the video camera, persistence of vision makes them too blurry. Strobing the output compensates. (You could just as easily say that the problem is the video cameras, but the one place the problem definitely isn't is the LCD.)
You're sort of missing a key point - until they had the body, they had no conclusive proof that she was dead. But your overall point is correct; even if she was only considered missing he would still be a suspect, so it's a moot point really.
If you're going to Godwin the discussion, at least do it properly. It wouldn't be like that at all.
It'd be like Nazi Germany saying that it was hypocritical of the US to torture prisoners in Gitmo.
We're the ones who say it's bad, and yet we're doing it.
What I reject is your suggestion that it's little more than money and bias that decides things.
Oh, I didn't say that. What I said was, sometimes it is biased, and when it is, there's little you can do about it unless you have money.
And secondly... how is this even legal? I didn't think it was possible to sign away your ability to sign a contract. /boggle
It's legal in precisely the same way that it's legal to take away felons' rights to vote and bear arms.
pretty much by definition, where a trial proceeds through appeals, it's because the existing body of law and precedent do not provide a clear rule on who's right and who's wrong, and so the process works to generate a final ruling ... But this idea you seem to have that the legal system is simply corrupt is just... tremendously illustrative, perhaps, about how the hacker mindset deals badly with non-deterministic systems.
You appear to think that the legal system behaves non-deterministically only when the law and precedent is ambiguous.
Well, you've obviously never been ticketed for an offense you didn't commit or had police violate your rights.
So total out of pocket costs to him is ZERO plus a nice tax deduction for a donation to the EFF.
Wouldn't he have to pay taxes on all of the money that was donated anyway? Writing off the tax deduction for the portion that he donated to the EFF would only partially offset that, as he'd only have to pay taxes on the money he didn't donate.
If you read the list you posted, those things are already illegal anyway
The whole point of the case was that he had done those things because he believed (and still believes) that they are not against the law.
Had he won, it would have set legal precedent that they are in fact not against the law. Had he lost, it would have set precedent that they are illegal, and since he was convinced that he was inevitably going to lose he chose to settle and avoid setting that precedent.
Setting precedent only happens when the judge is ruling on something not covered either by existing law or prior precedent. They don't get to just make shit up. And if they do, there's several layers of appeals courts that routinely revisit and overturn the rulings of judges.
Court cases cost money. Lots of money. Appeals cost even more money. Unless you can find someone with extremely deep pockets to back you, you just lose and pay whatever penalty gets dished out. And judges aren't accountable to anyone if their decision does get overturned higher up.
Hackers have trouble dealing with the legal system because they can't handle the apparent ambiguity of the process and the results.
No shit, Sherlock. Not even all of the justices of the Supreme Court can typically agree on the legal issues with which they're faced. When the highest court in the land is divided in their opinions on really important cases, what hope do you have of getting the desired outcome in your petty little case?
I actually have trouble understanding why hackers just completely lose their shit when the law is involved. It's an interesting and complex system that any real hacker should relish understanding and, well, hacking.
Wrong because of what you said shortly thereafter:
I actually argued with a linux kernel dev who refused to accept the verdict even after Reiser led the police to the body, because he couldn't understand how a guilty verdict was reached in the trial. He actually said "the investigation was flawed, and couldn't logically produce Reiser as a suspect, therefore the trial was flawed and the guilty verdict wrong."
"Hacking" the legal system doesn't work if the judge doesn't care. Yes, maybe the judge should release you on a technicality that you cleverly discovered, but if he/she doesn't, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
"Hacking" a system is only possible when it always follows its own rules. Judges are allowed to make up the interpretations of rules as they go. It's called setting precedent.
Isn't it possible that the judge correctly decided that you were an abrasive, unlikable person
Oh dear, holding someone to the due responsibility of their position and expecting them to carry out their duties lawfully makes me abrasive and unlikable...
you would be more fair and impartial than the other jury candidates.
Fair and impartial jurors are the last thing they want. They want jurors who can be swayed easily.
Along the same line of reasoning, at the moment I buy a device, I am free to choose to reverse-engineer it and publish the findings.
Not true - you'd violate copyright, and anyone building their own device based on your findings would undoubtedly violate multiple patents. However, a private key is neither patentable nor copyrightable.
Actually it belongs to the copyright holders, whether that be some giant music conglomerate, or an individual artist or group.
That's a fairly meaningless distinction. The record companies are the licensed representatives for the artists they've signed, and the RIAA is a trust composed of representatives from the record companies.
There's a few different names... I think they're typically just called ROM readers or ROM dumping utilities, or just about any EEPROM programmer would also be able to read back the contents of ROM/EEPROM chips. You'd probably be better off asking on a hardware hacking forum, as the method of reading a ROM depends upon the exact type of ROM chip you're trying to access. (Pin layouts are different, voltages are different, etc. - getting it wrong can damage the chip, or the reading device.) I did find this, which lists a ROM programmer presumably compatible with the EEPROM chips in automobile computers (automobile hardware hackers reverse-engineer the code running in their auto's on-board computer and load it with custom chipsets to tweak things like fuel injection, etc.)... you'd really have to search for a reader for the specific type of ROM chip you're trying to access, though.