I've been looking for this type of device too. If anyone who has actually done this could post a detailed HOWTO, I would really appreciate it.
I did this, and I found this howto extremely helpful. I made some simple changes to their scripts (lame parameters mainly), but this should give you what you need:
Alternatively, if you just get a new phone, you can donate your old phone to Call to Protect. The Call to Protect campaign collects deactivated but 911 capable phones and provides them to victims of domestic violence.
The phones are then programmed to call 911 and a few other local, non-emergency numbers like domestic violence shelters using airtime donated by the cellular industry.
I have actually wondered i bit over when to use "that" and when to use "which". Could anybody clear that up for me in even more detail, than the parent of this post? It would be appriciated.
Going way OT here, but I've never cared about karma before, so why not? By the way, this comes from one of the writing stylebooks on my desk, it's not my lame-o example. I keep it handy there because its one of the things that the Word grammer checker gets (sort of) wrong.
From The Little, Brown Compact Handbook (page 385).
That always introduces restrictive clauses: We should use the lettuce that susan bought (that susan bought limits the lettuce to a particular lettuce). Which can introduce both restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses, but many writers reserve which for only non restrictive clauses: The leftover lettuce, which is in the refridgerator, would make a good salad (which is in the refrigerator simply provides more information about the lettuce we already know of). Restrictive clauses (with that or which are not set off by commas; nonrestrictive clauses (with which are.
Also, note that, according to this usage guide, your parent post is wrong. Using which does not necessarily require a comma. Which can be used for restrictive clauses without a comma although the Microsoft Word grammer checker would not have you believe so.
So while the red had been contaminated with 100% of 1 cup, the blue has only been contaminated with 95% of the same volume. Thus, there is more blue liquid in the red bucket than there is red liquid in the blue bucket.
But you forget that you are moving some of that "100% of 1 cup back. For those that are having trouble seeing that they're the same, try it with numbers...
Assume:
Starting size = 400ml
Cup size = 40 ml (orignial post said 10%, so I'll use that)
Start with 400 ml blue, 400 ml red. Remove 40 ml from blue jar. Blue jar now 360 ml blue. Add to red. Red jar now 400 ml red, 40 ml blue. Remove 40 ml from red jar. We remove 36 ml red, 4 ml blue. Red jar now 364 ml red, 36 ml blue. Add (36 ml red, 4 ml blue) to blue jar. Blue jar now 364 ml blue 36 ml red.
See, they match. I didn't believe it until I tried it either though...
Maybe it's the fault of my high school econ teacher who convinced us that the market was the most efficient solution to many problems, but I really like this idea.
The biggest reason this makes sense to me is that when I'm online, I have no expectation of privacy. I expect that unless I make efforts with encryption, etc. that my communication online isn't private. There are certain orgainizations that I trust more than others online, but when it comes down to it, I have no idea who's looking at my data once it hits the network.
Since I already feel like anyone who wants my personal information can buy it, I'd like them to buy it from me at my price.
But a privacy policy which demanded an affirmative grant of permission for each new use of information would do more than kill the mood, it would impermissibly restrict free speech.
[snip]
Ordinarily, we expect that we reveal a great deal about ourselves in everyday interactions... We expect, moreover, that information we make available without some explicit guarantee of secrecy will be freely shared... We cannot assert a property right when talking to the proprietor of a website, and then deny it exists when talking to a journalist or acquaintance.
I think that the idea here is a great one, but seeing it implemented successfully would amaze me.
I am an undergrad at the University of Wisconsin. Last semester, the students in my econ class (intermediate microeconomic theory) were given the oppertunity to participate in a "research study." We were told that we would play a network based game against (with?) other players, and we could earn as much as $40 based on our and others good economic decisions.
Needing beer money, I thought 'what the hell'. They'd give me $5 just for showing up, so I went. There were spots for 40 people to participate. We had our pictures taken with a digital camera, and were assigned to computers.
The game itself was web-based. The rules were simple. The game was divided into 40 rounds; and every 8 rounds you were placed onto a new "team" of 5. In each round, each player had 20 units to "invest" and all 20 units needed to be invested. There were two possible investments, red and blue. The red investment always paid you 2 cents per unit and the blue investment always paid 1 cent per unit to every player on your team.
Before you choose your investment for a given round, you could see the faces of your teammates. Also, unless it was the first round of a given team, you could see how much each teammate had invested in blue (either 0-15 or 16+, not the exact amount) the previous round.
If everyone on all of your teams cooporated (blue investment) throughout the game, you'd all make $40 over the game. Of course, the dominant stratgey for any particular round is to invest all of your money in red (regardless of what your team mates do, you're better off). If, through out the entire game, your team mates choose all blue, but you always choose red, you could make $48. Investing in red, however, gives you're team mates the impression that you're 'screwing' them (profiting off their blue investment, but not returning the favor).
At the end of the round, you could see who had invested in blue (same as before, not the exact amount) and how much you had earned during the round.
It was a really interesting experiment for a few reasons. I was suprised how easily everyone co-operated during the start of the game. As the rounds went by, though, co-operation became increasing unlikely. It was also interesting that you couldn't see the exact amount anyone invested, just if they put more than 16 in blue. This probably led to players investing 'just enough' (16) to appear that they were 'team players'.
Also, we were not allowed to talk at all during the experiment. We were seperated into neighboring computer labs, so only half of the players were in the same room. The only way to identify your teammates was the little digital camera picture on the screen. Even with that little information, I began to form opinions about the various other players as the game progressed. It was interesting to remember someone who "screwed me" by taking advantage of my good faith blue investment and investing red. As players I recoginzed showed up on my later teams, I found myself trying to screw them on the assumption that they wouldn't be helping me anyway.
All in all, a very interesting hour. I did all right, made it away with about $33 (enought for beer and then some), so it was worth the time.
While I agree with some of what you say, it isn't that clear cut. SMTP is a public protocol as well. Does that mean that I should be able to request that some "publicly available" SMTP server relay hundreds of thousands of my get-rich-quick SPAM messages? At some point, you are using a significant amount of the resources that someone else pays for.
There needs to be a line somewhere. Where that line should be drawn? I'm not sure (that's why I find this discussion so interesting), but I have little faith in the US government to get it right.
Using IE 5 on a mac I get the very same message. Kind of funny (sad?) since, as you say, it is one of the most standards compliant browsers available on any platform.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been looking for this type of device too. If anyone who has actually done this could post a detailed HOWTO, I would really appreciate it.
I did this, and I found this howto extremely helpful. I made some simple changes to their scripts (lame parameters mainly), but this should give you what you need:
Linux Radio Timeshift HOWTO:
http://osl.iu.edu/~tveldhui/radio/
Alternatively, if you just get a new phone, you can donate your old phone to Call to Protect. The Call to Protect campaign collects deactivated but 911 capable phones and provides them to victims of domestic violence.
The phones are then programmed to call 911 and a few other local, non-emergency numbers like domestic violence shelters using airtime donated by the cellular industry.
I have actually wondered i bit over when to use "that" and when to use "which". Could anybody clear that up for me in even more detail, than the parent of this post? It would be appriciated.
Going way OT here, but I've never cared about karma before, so why not? By the way, this comes from one of the writing stylebooks on my desk, it's not my lame-o example. I keep it handy there because its one of the things that the Word grammer checker gets (sort of) wrong.
From The Little, Brown Compact Handbook (page 385).
Also, note that, according to this usage guide, your parent post is wrong. Using which does not necessarily require a comma. Which can be used for restrictive clauses without a comma although the Microsoft Word grammer checker would not have you believe so.
So while the red had been contaminated with 100% of 1 cup, the blue has only been contaminated with 95% of the same volume. Thus, there is more blue liquid in the red bucket than there is red liquid in the blue bucket.
But you forget that you are moving some of that "100% of 1 cup back. For those that are having trouble seeing that they're the same, try it with numbers...
Assume:
Starting size = 400ml
Cup size = 40 ml (orignial post said 10%, so I'll use that)
Start with 400 ml blue, 400 ml red. Remove 40 ml from blue jar. Blue jar now 360 ml blue. Add to red. Red jar now 400 ml red, 40 ml blue. Remove 40 ml from red jar. We remove 36 ml red, 4 ml blue. Red jar now 364 ml red, 36 ml blue. Add (36 ml red, 4 ml blue) to blue jar. Blue jar now 364 ml blue 36 ml red.
See, they match. I didn't believe it until I tried it either though...
--
Sig.
Why it's Deja News, of course.
So, you want to hack it?
Well then I'd start here if I were you:t raBoard.pl
http://www.linux-hacker.net/cgi-bin/UltraBoard/Ul
On this web-board, it's called the MSN Companion.
Random signature string.
here.
For an example of how impressive this could be, check out this site. Look at the last picture on the page; dare I say classy?
...is on Orion's belt.
Enjoy...
http://mirror.sit.wisc.edu/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/. 4/
ftp://mirror.sit.wisc.edu/mirrors/linux/kernel/v2
'lil sig
Maybe it's the fault of my high school econ teacher who convinced us that the market was the most efficient solution to many problems, but I really like this idea.
The biggest reason this makes sense to me is that when I'm online, I have no expectation of privacy. I expect that unless I make efforts with encryption, etc. that my communication online isn't private. There are certain orgainizations that I trust more than others online, but when it comes down to it, I have no idea who's looking at my data once it hits the network.
Since I already feel like anyone who wants my personal information can buy it, I'd like them to buy it from me at my price.
Continuing from the article:
I think that the idea here is a great one, but seeing it implemented successfully would amaze me.
I am an undergrad at the University of Wisconsin. Last semester, the students in my econ class (intermediate microeconomic theory) were given the oppertunity to participate in a "research study." We were told that we would play a network based game against (with?) other players, and we could earn as much as $40 based on our and others good economic decisions.
Needing beer money, I thought 'what the hell'. They'd give me $5 just for showing up, so I went. There were spots for 40 people to participate. We had our pictures taken with a digital camera, and were assigned to computers.
The game itself was web-based. The rules were simple. The game was divided into 40 rounds; and every 8 rounds you were placed onto a new "team" of 5. In each round, each player had 20 units to "invest" and all 20 units needed to be invested. There were two possible investments, red and blue. The red investment always paid you 2 cents per unit and the blue investment always paid 1 cent per unit to every player on your team.
Before you choose your investment for a given round, you could see the faces of your teammates. Also, unless it was the first round of a given team, you could see how much each teammate had invested in blue (either 0-15 or 16+, not the exact amount) the previous round.
If everyone on all of your teams cooporated (blue investment) throughout the game, you'd all make $40 over the game. Of course, the dominant stratgey for any particular round is to invest all of your money in red (regardless of what your team mates do, you're better off). If, through out the entire game, your team mates choose all blue, but you always choose red, you could make $48. Investing in red, however, gives you're team mates the impression that you're 'screwing' them (profiting off their blue investment, but not returning the favor).
At the end of the round, you could see who had invested in blue (same as before, not the exact amount) and how much you had earned during the round.
It was a really interesting experiment for a few reasons. I was suprised how easily everyone co-operated during the start of the game. As the rounds went by, though, co-operation became increasing unlikely. It was also interesting that you couldn't see the exact amount anyone invested, just if they put more than 16 in blue. This probably led to players investing 'just enough' (16) to appear that they were 'team players'.
Also, we were not allowed to talk at all during the experiment. We were seperated into neighboring computer labs, so only half of the players were in the same room. The only way to identify your teammates was the little digital camera picture on the screen. Even with that little information, I began to form opinions about the various other players as the game progressed. It was interesting to remember someone who "screwed me" by taking advantage of my good faith blue investment and investing red. As players I recoginzed showed up on my later teams, I found myself trying to screw them on the assumption that they wouldn't be helping me anyway.
All in all, a very interesting hour. I did all right, made it away with about $33 (enought for beer and then some), so it was worth the time.
There needs to be a line somewhere. Where that line should be drawn? I'm not sure (that's why I find this discussion so interesting), but I have little faith in the US government to get it right.
I assume this is available to the outside world as well...
ftp://mirror.sit.wisc.edu/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/
http://mirror.sit.wisc.edu/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/
Using IE 5 on a mac I get the very same message. Kind of funny (sad?) since, as you say, it is one of the most standards compliant browsers available on any platform.