Jamming is the problem. It creates a lot of collateral damage. If a cheap physical net works, then great. But there are other ways to smuggle phones into the prison. You, yourself mentioned grift. So I propose that your cheap net simply won't work. So I pointed out detection of mobile phones rather than jamming.
Have a number of local femtocells in the prison. Mobile devices will use them because they have the most bestest signal. Based on a pattern of which femtocells a device uses, you get a rough idea where the mobile device is located. A shakedown and search of that area should turn up the device. Remember a device is detected from being merely turned on, not from being used.
That net won't stop a very small walking robot from carrying wire cutters up to the edge of the fence. Maybe even through several fences. The wire cutters could be part of the robot's frame.
> Where are we going to find a sufficiently sadistic game show host for phase 2?
Seriously? There are a whole slew of congress critters voting to take away people's health care and try to starve poor people. They don't even think themselves to be savages.
I mention in another reply that the focus should be on signal detection rather than jamming. You could narrow down the location of contraband phones. Know how many there are. Know who they call or receive calls from. And further, designated areas of the prison would be safe places for staff to use cell phones. The neighbors wouldn't have their legitimate cell phones jammed as a side effect.
Prisons should stop focusing on signal blocking. The FCC is against it for good reason. It can disrupt communications for legitimate users. The wireless carriers paid handsomely for exclusive use of that spectrum. The prisons have no right to be actively transmitting any signals on that spectrum.
Here is an idea: How about signal detection instead! OMG. It would mean that cell phones could be used in designated parts of the prison occupied only by staff. It would mean that cell phone signals in prison population areas could be instantly detected -- even from the moment a phone is turned on and before it is used. You could potentially track the location of a phone as it moves throughout the prison. You would know the approximate location of a contraband phone, and could shake down and search cells in the area until you find it. You might also be able to determine who calls or is called by a contraband phone and gather intelligence, preventing future contraband. I'm sure a prisoner has a limited number of outside sources willing to help him/her. Once you eliminate that network, they probably aren't getting much more contraband items.
In the 21st century aren't prisons supposed to be profitable? For-profit prisons generate revenue, from that profits, from that executive bonuses and increased shareholder value.
The education system could be designed so that half the student population is pigeon holed towards a future of occupying cells of a for profit prison. The other half the student population would be pigeon holed into menial labor jobs that generate enough domestic GDP to (1) keep the for-profit prisons operating efficiently, and (2) keep the ruling class fat and happy.
Problem solved. Everyone happy. No need for prisons to be a money sink as you say.
A coal fired Tesla is a stupid idea worthy of your lack of imagination. Wouldn't it be more likely that a coal fired Falcon 9 could be made to work than a coal fired earth bound vehicle?
Let me see if I get you right. You're saying that women should stay home to be sexually harassed and exploited rather than go to the factory. Or maybe the women can stay home to take care of the kids, and not be harassed (but be exploited) while the man goes out to sexually harass other women. Or while he goes to work to sexually harass other women.
I think you missed the implied humor where I specifically suggested Russian immigrants to work on government systems. Not something I would have raised an eyebrow over, until very recently.
I understand why globalization. You don't need to explain it. But there is a flip side to that explanation. Employers want to screw you to line their own pockets, and shareholders. So rather than pay what the job is worth, which they could do and still profit handsomely, they offer you the choice: slave labor wages job, or no job. As ambassador Delenn says, it's all a matter of perspective.
> "Trump suggested he might relax his stance on immigration
> as a way to get tech leaders to help his cause. 'You can get
> the people you want,' he told the assembled CEOs.
Translation: you can bring in low paid Russian immigrants to work on government systems. The more critical systems, the better. Our voting systems need some work, and before 2018.
Could this be the foreshadowing of another AI Winter? I remember the AI Winter of the late 1980's and early 1990's. At that time, the hype was about some of the truly amazing things that could be done in Prolog like languages. Pattern matching. Deductive reasoning. Theorem provers. Computer Algebra Systems (CAS). And especially Expert Systems.
The expectations got totally out of control. Wow! A knowledge expert could write a set of rules so that an expert system could predict who is a bad credit risk! Etc. Of course, modern statistical approaches might be much better at that. But I use it as an example of having too great of expectations.
Like today, these modern statistical classifiers are amazing! But one day one of those statistical classifiers will mis-classify a pedestrian in front of a vehicle. Another possible way there could be wrong expectations is that both human beings and also managers might expect these systems to have some kind of insight or creativity. Or possibly deductive reasoning power (like the classic AI systems actually had, to a degree).
A minor correction. The replies WOULD show up on the main forum. But you couldn't read them by clicking on the link to the newly posted message. The only way to read the message was to know how to HTTP GET a page that was the equivalent of hitting the REPLY button. But you couldn't hit the reply button unless you could read the message. But if you knew the message ID from the link, and you knew how to mechanically form the URL for the reply button, you could get back the reply page, with the original message quoted, and a box to type in your reply. Sorry for not describing it correctly above. It was just so long ago. The Tardkopf thread went on for a very long time. It might have been more than a year. Possibly longer. It was amusing that people would talk about how there were replies to this deleted topic. But nobody could read them by clicking the links.
But again, I can't imagine that anyone who would take advantage of how unbelievably poorly Yahoo's message forums were shoddily constructed.
Back in the day, there was no verification needed to create a Y! account. You certainly did not need a phone number.
So you can imagine that the process could be scripted. Not that I'm suggesting that anyone would have ever done such a thing. Nosiree.
Back in the day, when laughing at trolls on Y! SCOX message board, one could use a script that could use many accounts to vote down troll comments, effectively nuking them.
Furthermore, you did not even need an HTTP POST operation to cause a downvote. Just a GET operation with all necessary parameters in the URL. And the right cookies to be "logged in" on an account that would be voting on the message.
I'm not saying anyone would actually do such a thing. Definitely not. I'm just saying it would have been possible.
Another bit of trivia from back when Yahoo had stock message boards. Sometimes Yahoo would delete an entire troll thread. If you knew the HTTP POST parameters for a normal reply to a message, you could reply to a specific message on a deleted thread topic. People could carry on conversations invisibly for months or even years on one thread. None of this would show up on the main forum page. Just sayin'. But I can't say that I know of anyone who would engage in such behavior.
Same here. I won't be closing my hundreds of email accounts on Yahoo. I haven't used them in a decade. I see no reason to change them, close them, move them, or take any action whatsoever.
When the big Yahoo email breach occurred, how many people had the following questions?
1. I wonder how many of my email accounts (that I haven't used in years) are affected?
2. I wonder what percent of the breached accounts are my email accounts that I haven't used in years?
If you want privacy, isn't email the wrong tool? Isn't email like a post card that anyone can read in transit?
If you want private communications, look for a different way, a private way, to communicate.
If you want convenient email for casual use, try GMail. For example, Google will find things in your email, like confirmation emails of your upcoming flights, and then Google will be sure to remind you on your smart phone. But I don't treat communication with my airline the same as I might treat communication with other parties.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't all these media organizations band together instead to create their own search engine that features their news articles?
Oh, I know why! Because that would be actual hard work! Then everyone would be able to see the actual value that big internet companies bring.
That's just crazy talk. Next you'll be suggesting that people should be able to have health care. And other pesky things, like rights.
Jamming is the problem. It creates a lot of collateral damage. If a cheap physical net works, then great. But there are other ways to smuggle phones into the prison. You, yourself mentioned grift. So I propose that your cheap net simply won't work. So I pointed out detection of mobile phones rather than jamming.
Have a number of local femtocells in the prison. Mobile devices will use them because they have the most bestest signal. Based on a pattern of which femtocells a device uses, you get a rough idea where the mobile device is located. A shakedown and search of that area should turn up the device. Remember a device is detected from being merely turned on, not from being used.
Way cold! So dude, I also get a bonus flashing LED that can be removed from my stolen umbrella? Score!
That net won't stop a very small walking robot from carrying wire cutters up to the edge of the fence. Maybe even through several fences. The wire cutters could be part of the robot's frame.
> Where are we going to find a sufficiently sadistic game show host for phase 2?
Seriously? There are a whole slew of congress critters voting to take away people's health care and try to starve poor people. They don't even think themselves to be savages.
I mention in another reply that the focus should be on signal detection rather than jamming. You could narrow down the location of contraband phones. Know how many there are. Know who they call or receive calls from. And further, designated areas of the prison would be safe places for staff to use cell phones. The neighbors wouldn't have their legitimate cell phones jammed as a side effect.
Clearly democracy itself is the problem and must be outlawed. Now if only we had a dear leader who was bold and unconventional enough to help us. /s
Prisons should stop focusing on signal blocking. The FCC is against it for good reason. It can disrupt communications for legitimate users. The wireless carriers paid handsomely for exclusive use of that spectrum. The prisons have no right to be actively transmitting any signals on that spectrum.
Here is an idea: How about signal detection instead! OMG. It would mean that cell phones could be used in designated parts of the prison occupied only by staff. It would mean that cell phone signals in prison population areas could be instantly detected -- even from the moment a phone is turned on and before it is used. You could potentially track the location of a phone as it moves throughout the prison. You would know the approximate location of a contraband phone, and could shake down and search cells in the area until you find it. You might also be able to determine who calls or is called by a contraband phone and gather intelligence, preventing future contraband. I'm sure a prisoner has a limited number of outside sources willing to help him/her. Once you eliminate that network, they probably aren't getting much more contraband items.
In the 21st century aren't prisons supposed to be profitable? For-profit prisons generate revenue, from that profits, from that executive bonuses and increased shareholder value.
The education system could be designed so that half the student population is pigeon holed towards a future of occupying cells of a for profit prison. The other half the student population would be pigeon holed into menial labor jobs that generate enough domestic GDP to (1) keep the for-profit prisons operating efficiently, and (2) keep the ruling class fat and happy.
Problem solved. Everyone happy. No need for prisons to be a money sink as you say.
If prison workshops would have 3D printers that could print wire cutters, there would be no need for drones.
From the prison workshop's 3D printer of course.
Look. This sexual harassment situation is completely wrong and unfair. Tesla should insist that men get equal sexual harassment.
A coal fired Tesla is a stupid idea worthy of your lack of imagination. Wouldn't it be more likely that a coal fired Falcon 9 could be made to work than a coal fired earth bound vehicle?
Let me see if I get you right. You're saying that women should stay home to be sexually harassed and exploited rather than go to the factory. Or maybe the women can stay home to take care of the kids, and not be harassed (but be exploited) while the man goes out to sexually harass other women. Or while he goes to work to sexually harass other women.
I think you missed the implied humor where I specifically suggested Russian immigrants to work on government systems. Not something I would have raised an eyebrow over, until very recently.
I understand why globalization. You don't need to explain it. But there is a flip side to that explanation. Employers want to screw you to line their own pockets, and shareholders. So rather than pay what the job is worth, which they could do and still profit handsomely, they offer you the choice: slave labor wages job, or no job. As ambassador Delenn says, it's all a matter of perspective.
> "Trump suggested he might relax his stance on immigration
> as a way to get tech leaders to help his cause. 'You can get
> the people you want,' he told the assembled CEOs.
Translation: you can bring in low paid Russian immigrants to work on government systems. The more critical systems, the better. Our voting systems need some work, and before 2018.
((lisp is) (much (more better)))
Could this be the foreshadowing of another AI Winter? I remember the AI Winter of the late 1980's and early 1990's. At that time, the hype was about some of the truly amazing things that could be done in Prolog like languages. Pattern matching. Deductive reasoning. Theorem provers. Computer Algebra Systems (CAS). And especially Expert Systems.
The expectations got totally out of control. Wow! A knowledge expert could write a set of rules so that an expert system could predict who is a bad credit risk! Etc. Of course, modern statistical approaches might be much better at that. But I use it as an example of having too great of expectations.
Like today, these modern statistical classifiers are amazing! But one day one of those statistical classifiers will mis-classify a pedestrian in front of a vehicle. Another possible way there could be wrong expectations is that both human beings and also managers might expect these systems to have some kind of insight or creativity. Or possibly deductive reasoning power (like the classic AI systems actually had, to a degree).
A minor correction. The replies WOULD show up on the main forum. But you couldn't read them by clicking on the link to the newly posted message. The only way to read the message was to know how to HTTP GET a page that was the equivalent of hitting the REPLY button. But you couldn't hit the reply button unless you could read the message. But if you knew the message ID from the link, and you knew how to mechanically form the URL for the reply button, you could get back the reply page, with the original message quoted, and a box to type in your reply. Sorry for not describing it correctly above. It was just so long ago. The Tardkopf thread went on for a very long time. It might have been more than a year. Possibly longer. It was amusing that people would talk about how there were replies to this deleted topic. But nobody could read them by clicking the links.
But again, I can't imagine that anyone who would take advantage of how unbelievably poorly Yahoo's message forums were shoddily constructed.
Yes. Really.
Back in the day, there was no verification needed to create a Y! account. You certainly did not need a phone number.
So you can imagine that the process could be scripted. Not that I'm suggesting that anyone would have ever done such a thing. Nosiree.
Back in the day, when laughing at trolls on Y! SCOX message board, one could use a script that could use many accounts to vote down troll comments, effectively nuking them.
Furthermore, you did not even need an HTTP POST operation to cause a downvote. Just a GET operation with all necessary parameters in the URL. And the right cookies to be "logged in" on an account that would be voting on the message.
I'm not saying anyone would actually do such a thing. Definitely not. I'm just saying it would have been possible.
Another bit of trivia from back when Yahoo had stock message boards. Sometimes Yahoo would delete an entire troll thread. If you knew the HTTP POST parameters for a normal reply to a message, you could reply to a specific message on a deleted thread topic. People could carry on conversations invisibly for months or even years on one thread. None of this would show up on the main forum page. Just sayin'. But I can't say that I know of anyone who would engage in such behavior.
> argument is so 90s, and seems more like
> arguing whether cow or bull leather whips are better.
Bull leather whips work better.
Most employers would agree.
Same here. I won't be closing my hundreds of email accounts on Yahoo. I haven't used them in a decade. I see no reason to change them, close them, move them, or take any action whatsoever.
When the big Yahoo email breach occurred, how many people had the following questions?
1. I wonder how many of my email accounts (that I haven't used in years) are affected?
2. I wonder what percent of the breached accounts are my email accounts that I haven't used in years?
If you want privacy, isn't email the wrong tool? Isn't email like a post card that anyone can read in transit?
If you want private communications, look for a different way, a private way, to communicate.
If you want convenient email for casual use, try GMail. For example, Google will find things in your email, like confirmation emails of your upcoming flights, and then Google will be sure to remind you on your smart phone. But I don't treat communication with my airline the same as I might treat communication with other parties.