Terrible accuracy with lots of jitter. That is, when it even worked -- it would drop periodically, sometimes for several minutes. Very strange behavior for a day with clear, blue skies while driving on flat terrain with no obstructions.
Perhaps the problem is simply that it isn't widely publicized. Please allow me to attempt to rectify that:
Hey, malware authors! You can pounce on unsuspecting iPhone owners for only $102! All you need to do is get a disposable pre-paid Visa from Wal-Mart, and pay Apple $99 for a disposable dev account! And remember, kids, it takes money to make money! Happy phishing!
Pre-paid Visa cards are available at Wal-Mart for $3.
Becoming an IOS dev costs, what, $99?
So it costs just $102, then, to get a shot at pushing some malware which will hopefully make the author(s) some money. This really isn't a very high bar.
I think you're on the right track: Since "we do it all the time," then such conversational writing which includes opinions is something which should be plainly obvious and recognizable for everyone ("we").
For example: If I write "jo_ham, you're an asshole," then I am plainly just stating an opinion. I may be presenting this opinion using phraseology which is better-suited for presenting facts, by way omitting a preface such as "in my opinion." However, such omissions are quite common when writing informally.
In fact, it is my opinion (ha! there's both!) that it is more common to omit some language for the sake of concision in such forums as this, and that the presence of such pedantic and repetitive qualifiers can often be interpreted as an indication that the writer is being superfluously verbose.
English is flexible, and this really isn't bending it very far.
Think of it like playing 8-ball at a bar: You really only need to call the shots that aren't obvious to your opponent, and you only even bother with that level of pedantry to avoid getting in a fight over the outcome of that shot.
There are numerous other automatic penis-lacerating devices scattered throughout the USPTO portfolio, including whole metal chastity belts to accomplish the vengeful deed. This is merely the first one that I was able to find this evening.
But really: The most obvious, futureproof, economical, and easy-to-carry solution is for women to simply evolve vagina dentata, as elaborated and dramatized upon in this wonderful film.
Is the Asus RT-N16 actually fast? My most recent adventure in consumer-grade NAS was a 1TB Western Digital "World Edition" drive. It should've been fast.
It was a fun box to tinker with (it's always fun to have a low-powered device with a shitload of storage, Linux, and a network connection), but the speeds were so slow (3-4 megabytes per second, typically, and CPU limited) that I threw away the cute and compact enclosure and associated electronics, and put the SATA drive into a real computer.
At the time, folks in the know blamed a horrible driver for the gigabit(!) NIC that it included, but there were no proper solutions available. And I kind of miss tinkering with the thing.
Lately, all I use my home Athlon XP Linux box for is to keep that same 1TB drive spinning and shared with Samba -- while it used to be my primary desktop machine, it hasn't even had a monitor or a keyboard attached in several years. The most drastic thing I've done with it in ages was to replace the old, hot AGP nVidia 5200FX card with a ~15-year-old PCI Matrox Millenium to save on energy, and the only reason it even has the "fancy" Matrox is because the system wouldn't boot with no video card installed at all and I threw away all of my even-shittier cards a few years ago... But it Does Not Crash (uptime has only been limited by UPS capacity and hardware changes -- I've seen two years of straight uptime from this machine), and I particularly like machines that Do Not Crash.
Meanwhile, if I need a real Linux box (I am a Linux fanboy, despite all of this obvious disinterest) to tinker or do real work with, there's a few at work that I can use remotely and with impunity...which is good enough.
And I've been noticing that my old WRT54GL isn't really keeping up with my recently-upgraded 12/1.5 VDSL some of the time, between RAM starvation and high load averages when doing a little content filtering and a lot of QoS under TomatoUSB: When dealing with lots of torrents, it seems to fall apart above about 1500 connections, at which point things get dropped randomly and turn weird. (Yep, I know. And I want to do it this way anyway.)
So. I want a new low-power file-serving box, so I can turn off this Athlon machine that only shares files, and I want a new router with more RAM and a faster CPU. And USB 2.0 is plenty fast enough to keep up with this "Green Edition" 1TB drive.
I know that the RT-N16 will pay for itself in short order based on power usage alone. I know that it's relatively hackable, and that there are a fair variety of current firmwares that it can work with. I know that it has 128MB of RAM, which is plenty for these jobs. But will it actually solve my problems sufficiently that I enjoy owning it, using it, and hacking it, or will I loathe its existence and be wishing for a better alternative?
(I also know that I could just Google this, but I'd rather talk about it than read about it.)
I've run servers for years -- for awhile, I even maintained my own mail server on a home Roadrunner connection. And in the dialup days, I was usually connected 24/7. And when I had ISDN, I was always connected 24/7 on one channel, and often with two of them.
Even today, port 25 is unblocked (free, with a phone call to the right people) on my AT&T Uverse connection. I've got SSH open, and a few other things that I find handy for myself (and, occasionally, others). Mostly, though, the Uverse pipe is filled up by automatically sucking down RSS feeds of TV show torrents that I can't be bothered to pay to watch anymore, and those 1080i rips can get pretty big . . .
I've never, ever had any complaints from any ISP -- nary a peep. I pay the bill on time, they keep the pipe lit up, and the speeds are always consistent no matter what the content is. *shrug*
Either I'm not as abusive as I feel that I am, or the reports of ISPs being assholes are greatly exaggerated.
No. My suggestion is that they either accept credit cards under the terms of the agreement, or that they accept other forms of payment instead.
If they want to play the game, they've got to follow the rules. Just like I, the cardholder, must. Along with Visa, the issuing bank, and probably other parties.
They don't get special rights just because they're a merchant.
(And yes, I'm also a mechant. And I accept credit cards.)
I stopped reading after "Uniform Linear Array." I am simply too tired at the moment to rewrite what you posted with appropriate whitespace/paragraphs so that I might be able to actually parse it.
I think that you are right and that your idea makes sense, based on the little that I did read of your post. However, there were about 375 more words after that point which I [ITALICS*]couldn't stand to read[/ITALICS*].
It looks like you've made a tried to make a good contribution, #1997052**, but I really think you need to look into formatting if you want people to read what you've got to say -- either here, or elsewhere. It does not matter how good your ideas are if it hurts people to read them: Folks simply won't bother.
*: AFAICT, the I tag is still broken since the redesign. Rob? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?
I believe AM [ITALICS]is[/ITALICS] a designator of modulation style, rather than a frequency band.
What frequency does my TDMA phone work at, again?
What about my FM portable? Would this be different from my VHF portable? (What if they're the same device?)
When I tune my TV to the local low-power station on UHF channel 22, which is still pushing NTSC: Am I receiving AM, FM, or UHF? (The answer is: All of the above. The video is AM, the audio is FM, and the carrier is UHF.)
With WiFi, you're right: The wavelengths are short enough that packing this all into a unitized box is easy. However, if we're dealing with WiFi, the signals are fairly broadband, which I think makes it mostly moot, since the definition of "1/2 wavelength" varies.
It would work great for AM transmissions. But the more I look at it, the less I think it's going to completely revamp common wireless networking...
Voice communication in general, maybe. Aviation communication, absolutely. But again: But.
Its not clear that an ethernet based protocol would be appropriate for a full duplex link, so I'm not sure your focus on throughput rather than bandwidth is appropriate.
Wow.
Just, wow.
Next week: "Its [sic] not clear that a directional lane-based system would be appropriate for a highway system..."
Doing this On the same frequency is remarkable. but the gains they are claiming can be had right now by using TWO frequencies.
Agreed, for the most part. But: 802.11g in many countries (including the US) only has three available, non-overlapping channels allocated.
Doing this on one frequency instead of two allows double the spectral efficiency, and we get to keep our (already paltry) 3 non-overlapping channels. This means that we get twice the bandwidth in a given geographic space (versus using two channels), which is important for schools, businesses, and apartment dwellers everywhere.
Further: Talking and listening on frequencies as logarithmically close together as these are really isn't the easiest thing to do in terms of getting the receiver in one radio to be able to ignore the transmitter right next to it in such sufficiency that it can still hear a faint transmitter way-over-there.
And, there's the more practical matter: Suppose everyone talks on, say, channel 1. And everyone listens on channel 6. How in the fuck are nodes supposed to hear eachother? Even in a common 802.11 access point configuration, where everyone talks to the AP, the radios still need to monitor the transmit channel to attempt to avoid collisions.
Your concept really only works if there are only two nodes on the system -- and for point-to-point links such as that, using multiple frequencies has been done since forever.
the thing is, 90% of Ethernet traffic is not bi directional. it's packetized so their claims of DOUBLE will not be realized. when you set up a network connection from half duplex to full duplex you do not see a double in speed, just a double in capacity.
Speeds can be much better -- again, assuming that there are more than two devices on a given network.
As collisions are reduced, spectral efficiency goes up even more. I might say that in practice, the improvement in available speed* may be even more than double, versus the giant collision domain that 802.11 is today on networks that actually, you know, get used by more than a pair of devices.
*: This may not apply to Lumpy's mythical network of only one access point and one client device.
It was the first e-book I'd ever read, though I didn't know it at the time: I downloaded it as a kid, too -- in 1991.
And then, one of the older folks around me loaned me a copy of it. IIRC in high-quality, library-bound hardback form, which had been stolen from a local high school library. We both agreed, at the time, that physically stealing a book titled "Anarchist's Cookbook" really was the most appropriate means of acquisition.
I work at a small business. We use a terminal to manually enter credit cards to be processed, as most of our orders come in over the phone or online. The cc terminal uses number/name/exp. date/CCV for the go-ahead, then uses the home address # and zip code to verify the cardholder. If the info doesn't match up, we pay a higher fee because it's a "higher risk transaction".
Fine.
But those are different from the "card present" transactions which are being discussed here.
It's not likely for the CC's company's protection, it's for the merchant's. It's the merchant that bears most of the risk for fraudulent transactions, and it's their decision to add an extra validation step.
*sigh*
We consumers have rules and contracts that we must follow when using credit cards.
Merchants do as well.
These practices are, generally, in complete non-compliance with the Merchant Agreement which has been, perhaps surprisingly to you, agreed to by the merchant.
And, simply: If they don't like the terms of that agreement, then they needn't accept credit cards. At all.
Like anything else in life involving money, you either play the game by its stated rules, or you don't play at all.
Kroger has a similar system in place with their "Plus Card."
But it's happy enough to get any random information, including fictitious phone numbers that have never been associated with a "Plus Card." Just key in a 10-digit "phone number", watch the display indicate your "savings," and go.
So the basis of everything being secure is that what is today, is not tomorrow.
If my local network needs to change on a daily basis in order to be "secure," you can count me out.
NAT it is. (And, remember: While NAT doesn't mean "firewall," every single common implementation of it in these modern times includes an ingress firewall by default.)
TomatoUSB is just a slightly more updated version of Tomato -- Tomato has a number of forks, and this just happens to be one that folks are actively working on. "TomatoUSB" is more of a name than an indication of featureset, though some builds allegedly do support USB on routers that have it.
Slashdot Mirror
GPS went wonky on Friday for me, too, around 4PM.
Terrible accuracy with lots of jitter. That is, when it even worked -- it would drop periodically, sometimes for several minutes. Very strange behavior for a day with clear, blue skies while driving on flat terrain with no obstructions.
Perhaps the problem is simply that it isn't widely publicized. Please allow me to attempt to rectify that:
Hey, malware authors! You can pounce on unsuspecting iPhone owners for only $102! All you need to do is get a disposable pre-paid Visa from Wal-Mart, and pay Apple $99 for a disposable dev account! And remember, kids, it takes money to make money! Happy phishing!
There. That should do it.
This is not a virus.
Pre-paid Visa cards are available at Wal-Mart for $3.
Becoming an IOS dev costs, what, $99?
So it costs just $102, then, to get a shot at pushing some malware which will hopefully make the author(s) some money. This really isn't a very high bar.
I think you're on the right track: Since "we do it all the time," then such conversational writing which includes opinions is something which should be plainly obvious and recognizable for everyone ("we").
For example: If I write "jo_ham, you're an asshole," then I am plainly just stating an opinion. I may be presenting this opinion using phraseology which is better-suited for presenting facts, by way omitting a preface such as "in my opinion." However, such omissions are quite common when writing informally.
In fact, it is my opinion (ha! there's both!) that it is more common to omit some language for the sake of concision in such forums as this, and that the presence of such pedantic and repetitive qualifiers can often be interpreted as an indication that the writer is being superfluously verbose.
English is flexible, and this really isn't bending it very far.
Think of it like playing 8-ball at a bar: You really only need to call the shots that aren't obvious to your opponent, and you only even bother with that level of pedantry to avoid getting in a fight over the outcome of that shot.
That all said: The Watchmen is shit.
You mean something like this wicked contraption?
There are numerous other automatic penis-lacerating devices scattered throughout the USPTO portfolio, including whole metal chastity belts to accomplish the vengeful deed. This is merely the first one that I was able to find this evening.
But really: The most obvious, futureproof, economical, and easy-to-carry solution is for women to simply evolve vagina dentata, as elaborated and dramatized upon in this wonderful film.
Your first link was disturbing.
Your second link is just as bad as this other bit of Internet infamy.
You, sir, win three Internets for your efforts.
Big douche bags FTW! (er sth.)
Off topic, but:
Is the Asus RT-N16 actually fast? My most recent adventure in consumer-grade NAS was a 1TB Western Digital "World Edition" drive. It should've been fast.
It was a fun box to tinker with (it's always fun to have a low-powered device with a shitload of storage, Linux, and a network connection), but the speeds were so slow (3-4 megabytes per second, typically, and CPU limited) that I threw away the cute and compact enclosure and associated electronics, and put the SATA drive into a real computer.
At the time, folks in the know blamed a horrible driver for the gigabit(!) NIC that it included, but there were no proper solutions available. And I kind of miss tinkering with the thing.
Lately, all I use my home Athlon XP Linux box for is to keep that same 1TB drive spinning and shared with Samba -- while it used to be my primary desktop machine, it hasn't even had a monitor or a keyboard attached in several years. The most drastic thing I've done with it in ages was to replace the old, hot AGP nVidia 5200FX card with a ~15-year-old PCI Matrox Millenium to save on energy, and the only reason it even has the "fancy" Matrox is because the system wouldn't boot with no video card installed at all and I threw away all of my even-shittier cards a few years ago... But it Does Not Crash (uptime has only been limited by UPS capacity and hardware changes -- I've seen two years of straight uptime from this machine), and I particularly like machines that Do Not Crash.
Meanwhile, if I need a real Linux box (I am a Linux fanboy, despite all of this obvious disinterest) to tinker or do real work with, there's a few at work that I can use remotely and with impunity...which is good enough.
And I've been noticing that my old WRT54GL isn't really keeping up with my recently-upgraded 12/1.5 VDSL some of the time, between RAM starvation and high load averages when doing a little content filtering and a lot of QoS under TomatoUSB: When dealing with lots of torrents, it seems to fall apart above about 1500 connections, at which point things get dropped randomly and turn weird. (Yep, I know. And I want to do it this way anyway.)
So. I want a new low-power file-serving box, so I can turn off this Athlon machine that only shares files, and I want a new router with more RAM and a faster CPU. And USB 2.0 is plenty fast enough to keep up with this "Green Edition" 1TB drive.
I know that the RT-N16 will pay for itself in short order based on power usage alone. I know that it's relatively hackable, and that there are a fair variety of current firmwares that it can work with. I know that it has 128MB of RAM, which is plenty for these jobs. But will it actually solve my problems sufficiently that I enjoy owning it, using it, and hacking it, or will I loathe its existence and be wishing for a better alternative?
(I also know that I could just Google this, but I'd rather talk about it than read about it.)
Indeed.
I've run servers for years -- for awhile, I even maintained my own mail server on a home Roadrunner connection. And in the dialup days, I was usually connected 24/7. And when I had ISDN, I was always connected 24/7 on one channel, and often with two of them.
Even today, port 25 is unblocked (free, with a phone call to the right people) on my AT&T Uverse connection. I've got SSH open, and a few other things that I find handy for myself (and, occasionally, others). Mostly, though, the Uverse pipe is filled up by automatically sucking down RSS feeds of TV show torrents that I can't be bothered to pay to watch anymore, and those 1080i rips can get pretty big . . .
I've never, ever had any complaints from any ISP -- nary a peep. I pay the bill on time, they keep the pipe lit up, and the speeds are always consistent no matter what the content is. *shrug*
Either I'm not as abusive as I feel that I am, or the reports of ISPs being assholes are greatly exaggerated.
No. My suggestion is that they either accept credit cards under the terms of the agreement, or that they accept other forms of payment instead.
If they want to play the game, they've got to follow the rules. Just like I, the cardholder, must. Along with Visa, the issuing bank, and probably other parties.
They don't get special rights just because they're a merchant.
(And yes, I'm also a mechant. And I accept credit cards.)
I stopped reading after "Uniform Linear Array." I am simply too tired at the moment to rewrite what you posted with appropriate whitespace/paragraphs so that I might be able to actually parse it.
I think that you are right and that your idea makes sense, based on the little that I did read of your post. However, there were about 375 more words after that point which I [ITALICS*]couldn't stand to read[/ITALICS*].
It looks like you've made a tried to make a good contribution, #1997052**, but I really think you need to look into formatting if you want people to read what you've got to say -- either here, or elsewhere. It does not matter how good your ideas are if it hurts people to read them: Folks simply won't bother.
*: AFAICT, the I tag is still broken since the redesign. Rob? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?
**: #1997052? Really? I feel old.
I believe AM [ITALICS]is[/ITALICS] a designator of modulation style, rather than a frequency band.
What frequency does my TDMA phone work at, again?
What about my FM portable? Would this be different from my VHF portable? (What if they're the same device?)
When I tune my TV to the local low-power station on UHF channel 22, which is still pushing NTSC: Am I receiving AM, FM, or UHF? (The answer is: All of the above. The video is AM, the audio is FM, and the carrier is UHF.)
With WiFi, you're right: The wavelengths are short enough that packing this all into a unitized box is easy. However, if we're dealing with WiFi, the signals are fairly broadband, which I think makes it mostly moot, since the definition of "1/2 wavelength" varies.
It would work great for AM transmissions. But the more I look at it, the less I think it's going to completely revamp common wireless networking...
Voice communication in general, maybe. Aviation communication, absolutely. But again: But.
Wow.
Just, wow.
Next week: "Its [sic] not clear that a directional lane-based system would be appropriate for a highway system..."
Agreed, for the most part. But: 802.11g in many countries (including the US) only has three available, non-overlapping channels allocated.
Doing this on one frequency instead of two allows double the spectral efficiency, and we get to keep our (already paltry) 3 non-overlapping channels. This means that we get twice the bandwidth in a given geographic space (versus using two channels), which is important for schools, businesses, and apartment dwellers everywhere.
Further: Talking and listening on frequencies as logarithmically close together as these are really isn't the easiest thing to do in terms of getting the receiver in one radio to be able to ignore the transmitter right next to it in such sufficiency that it can still hear a faint transmitter way-over-there.
And, there's the more practical matter: Suppose everyone talks on, say, channel 1. And everyone listens on channel 6. How in the fuck are nodes supposed to hear eachother? Even in a common 802.11 access point configuration, where everyone talks to the AP, the radios still need to monitor the transmit channel to attempt to avoid collisions.
Your concept really only works if there are only two nodes on the system -- and for point-to-point links such as that, using multiple frequencies has been done since forever.
Speeds can be much better -- again, assuming that there are more than two devices on a given network.
As collisions are reduced, spectral efficiency goes up even more. I might say that in practice, the improvement in available speed* may be even more than double, versus the giant collision domain that 802.11 is today on networks that actually, you know, get used by more than a pair of devices.
*: This may not apply to Lumpy's mythical network of only one access point and one client device.
How old do you feel?
It was the first e-book I'd ever read, though I didn't know it at the time: I downloaded it as a kid, too -- in 1991.
And then, one of the older folks around me loaned me a copy of it. IIRC in high-quality, library-bound hardback form, which had been stolen from a local high school library. We both agreed, at the time, that physically stealing a book titled "Anarchist's Cookbook" really was the most appropriate means of acquisition.
Fine.
But those are different from the "card present" transactions which are being discussed here.
Your argument is about morality.
The discussion is about contracts and laws that already exist.
Even if I agree with you (and I just might), you're wrong -- even if your premise is good and right.
*sigh*
We consumers have rules and contracts that we must follow when using credit cards.
Merchants do as well.
These practices are, generally, in complete non-compliance with the Merchant Agreement which has been, perhaps surprisingly to you, agreed to by the merchant.
And, simply: If they don't like the terms of that agreement, then they needn't accept credit cards. At all.
Like anything else in life involving money, you either play the game by its stated rules, or you don't play at all.
Kroger has a similar system in place with their "Plus Card."
But it's happy enough to get any random information, including fictitious phone numbers that have never been associated with a "Plus Card." Just key in a 10-digit "phone number", watch the display indicate your "savings," and go.
A regional grocery store that I frequent sometimes makes a habit of requiring a zip code, even for cash purchases.
It goes like this:
Them: "Can I have your zip code please?"
Me: "No."
Them: "But I need it to complete the sale."
Me: "No, you don't."
Them: "But it won't let me go any further without a zip code."
Me: "So what?"
Them: "Can I have your zip code?"
Me: "No. You don't need it."
Them (finally): "I'll have to call my manager."
Me: "Finally."
Manager: *keys in 00000, moves on with life*
It's just the free market at work.
If you keep cutting eachother's hair at home, you'll stay in the same predicament.
But if you stop, barber shops will spring forth.
Vote with your wallet. (Or so I'm told.)
Sometimes. Not always.
Not always at all.
Right.
So the basis of everything being secure is that what is today, is not tomorrow.
If my local network needs to change on a daily basis in order to be "secure," you can count me out.
NAT it is. (And, remember: While NAT doesn't mean "firewall," every single common implementation of it in these modern times includes an ingress firewall by default.)
Nor does mine have USB ports.
TomatoUSB is just a slightly more updated version of Tomato -- Tomato has a number of forks, and this just happens to be one that folks are actively working on. "TomatoUSB" is more of a name than an indication of featureset, though some builds allegedly do support USB on routers that have it.
As if things weren't already confusing enough. :)