Then why has Radio Shack been selling police scanners for decades?
Because, as the GP poster said, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL. Assorted NON-federal jurisdictions have attempted to make posession of a police scanner illegal, but the feds repeatedly throw the laws out.
there were certain combinations of mechanical devices that were not allowed to be combined. Posession of any one was OK, but posession of two or more (without assembling them) would have been "intent to manufacture". FYI, the law is no longer in effect.
Ah yes....red capes were legal, blue tights were legal, red speedo and boots were legal, but posession of all four was "intent to impersonate Superman". The dumb part is that Superman is no more dangerous than any of the other superheroes, and it wasn't illegal to impersonate THEM!
And as we all know, your AP as well as the client card are both a transmitter and a reciever. Hence they fall under FCC jurisdiction.
So? We're not talking about transceivers. You said "I suppose it is illegal to possess the "Cantenna" because it has not undergone government, ala FCC, testing." This is incorrect. Antennas alone do not undergo testing. Transmitters do. Transmitters are approved for use with specific antennas, i.e transmitter XYZ receives approval for use with antennas AA, BB, and CC. It may be perfectly legal to attach antenna DD to your XYZ transmitter, but XYZ Mfr Corp cannot sell the XYZ device with DD because that combination hasn't been FCC tested. This doesn't in any way make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or own a DD antenna as the FCC regulation applies to the transmitter, and really only the sale of it at that. So long as the gain falls within the signal power limits, you (the end user) can attach any dang antenna you want to that device.
Pringles can antennas are legal to own in the US. They are not legal to use for 802.11 equipment because you are only permitted to use an antenna that has been expressly approved for the specific model of 802.11 base station that you are using it with.
Subtle (but critical) error in the above. They are not legal for sale on 802.11 equipment if they're not approved. Untested (i.e. not specifically approved by the FCC for that application) homebuilt antennas are perfectly legal so long as the home builder has made a reasonable effort to heep the gain within FCC transmission power limits. Even then, the worst the FCC can do its require that you stop using it upon finding out it does exceed the limit. (See FCC part 15 rules, specifically 15.23)
I suppose it is illegal to possess the "Cantenna" because it has not undergone government, ala FCC, testing.
You suppose wrong. Antennas alone require no FCC testing. The FCC only regulates transmitters, and approves them for use with a specific antenna. An antenna alone is a freakin' metal stick, man. The FCC can't regulate the sale of springy bits of wire, regardless of whether the threaded end happens to fit a transmitter somewhere.
You'd be right about 85% of the time. No wonder this works better for grad students and professors, adults with responsibilities typically have schedules.
Yeah, that's about the size of it. Their conclusion is essentially "people with predictable habits remain predictable 85% of the time". I say they should let us know when they can predict the destination of a fire truck with 85% accuracy.
Thousands of hits wouldn't == a DDOS? Considering the proposal is for an automated system, they're equivalent in this case.
Thousands of hits is nothing. Plenty to swamp an inbox or database, hardly a blip for an average commercial server.
"A spammer is going to send free advertising for his competition and hope that he's annoying enough to cause a backlash? Un-fucking-likely."
This claim relies on spammers not knowing how to check their log files. If 100,000 fake orders came from certain, specific, addresses - spam those addresses. DDOS away!
I'm sorry, but the above sentence is completely incoherent. What do log files have to do with the the fact that Company A is not likely going to send out free advertising for Company B on the off chance that people will be annoyed enough to retaliate against Company B?
This is hardly a brilliant solution. A spammer could send spam, that looks just like the spam of his competition, and he's got a free DDOS.
A spammer is going to send free advertising for his competition and hope that he's annoying enough to cause a backlash? Un-fucking-likely.
Also, most spam sites are brand new hosting accounts set up on legitimate hosts with an automated sign-up process - not necessarily related to their mail servers. This means a response like this could be expected to catch a whole lot of innocent bystanders in the cross-fire - people who's only crime was to be hosted by a certain company.
If you'd RTFA, you'd know that it's not a DDOS, it's crapflooding their inbox. In order to make money, they gotta receive orders. The idea is not to overload their server's bandwidth, but rather render their response receiving system useless by making it too hard to find the legitimate orders amongst the thousands of ones saying "get stuffed!" or "send 100 million of your penis pills to me: GW Bush, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave".
Let's say I'm the owner of Whozenflotz, Inc (appologies if there really is a Whozenflotz, Inc) and I notice that ACME Corp's web presence is luring my potential customers away. So I hire a spam outfit to send hundreds of thousands of spams purporting to come from ACME with the expectation that this automated response system will knock ACME's web servers offline
So a Whozenflotz is going to run a free ad campaign for ACME and hope that it stirs up enough annoyance to trigger a an auto-reply DDOS? Sounds pretty fuckin' far fetched to me, man. It's pretty stupid to worry about the shine on your shoes when your house is on fire. I say we see if the system works at all instead of assuming it'll work too well.
...how does this make it any different from any other drug, then?
I know alcoholics who can't function normally unless they've had a drink...and it has nothing to do with how much they enjoy a drop now and again
Direct stimulation of the pleasure center would, in fact, be just like any other drug. This is a kind of tangential, though, to the device under discussion. I'm not at all sure what the anti-depression shocker thingy does because, like any respectable slashdot reader, I could not be bothered to RTFA.
By "know you" they mean "know what sort of tricks to use to goad you into buying". Name? Nah. They'd just as soon have you staple a nice barcode to your forehead. In all but a very few instances, knowing your name is just another trick for getting you to buy. "Hello, John Smith. We have recommendations for you."
I have several cigar related sites and Google as pretty much shunned the entire tobacco industry. I would openly welcome a competitor to AdSense by Yahoo/Overture.
I typed in "cigar' in the google search box, and sure enough, there was not a single ad, just search results. Did they ever exprese any reasoning behind this, or is it just explained away as "policy"? I tried a few other similar searches and found that "guns" is verboten, while "rifle" and "shotgun" are fine. Also "cigarettes" are out, but strangely not "cigarette". "Beer" and "whiskey" are apparently right out, but not "wine"-- because we all know wine drinkers are sophisticated bluebloods and whiskey and beer drinkers like in a trailer park and shoot each other with "guns" while smoking a "cigar", right? "Murder", "pedophelia", and "strangler" are apparently okey dokey as ad words though, with "strangler" even encouraging us to look for one on eBay.
I wonder how hackable they would be to send 'pleasure' signals... Kinda like a star trekkie thing that keeps your brain in extacy for hours upon hours... That would be the life... who cares about money after that implant.
Wouldn't work. Our brains don't measure things from a zero baseline, they do comparisons. Things like "fun", "pleasure", and even "pain" exist only as their requisite stimuli diverge from a running average baseline. In other words, constant stimulation of the pleasure center would fairly quickly become the new baseline, thus essentially rendering direct stimulation of the pleasure center "normal", and anything less than that "unpleasant".
And I still wonder, why do those telemarketers want to call me if I'm on this list. Seems like they are being done a service here. I'm not going to buy their crap so no sense wasting time on a call.
It's probably because people share phones. They don't one one sensible person in the household to put the phone on the DNC list when the house could be full of gullible relatives who'd buy their "credit protection insurance", "crack-alley time-shares", or "fur-bearing trout farm investment opportunities".
I don't think that a Schützenfest is what you think it is. It's a festival, also held in other German-speaking countries, that was originally rooted in archery and shooting competitions, but is now just a big celebration for the whole family. It involves fair-type games, parades, concerts, and other tourist-enticing activities.,
I know what Schützenfest is-- the point I was trying to make is that a Swiss Schützenfest will inevitably have scores of Swiss citizens showing up with their government issued Stgw 90 (SG 550) rifles to show off their marksmanship.
Wasting work time is nothing new. Any time I now waste on browsing web sites is nothing compared to the time I wasted before I had internet access, doing things like building a spring-powered "crossbow" out of old door closer parts.
The purpose of Daylight Savings was to give farmers more time and sunlight to harvest their crops during the summer months.
Nonsense. Farmers are against daylight saving time because they do everything by the sun. They start when the sun rises, and stop when it goes down, regardless of what time it is. A clock that jumps back and forth twice a year is an unnecessary complication that forces them to juggle their schedule when delivering crops to clock-bound businesses. Daylight saving time was instituted regionally in WWI and then made national in WW2 as an energy saving scheme.
Unfortunately, show me a country that doesn't rely on war to keep the peace and I'll show you a country that is ripe for the taking by one that does.
Switzerland?
I think the more technically correct challenge should have been "show me a country that doesn't rely on it's ability to fight a war to keep the peace". In that case, Switzerland doesn't qualify as practically every dang person in the country has a government-issued assault rifle and attends Schutzenfest regularly, the idea being that the whole country is the army, even the women. This (plus the terrain) is the real reason why the Schweiz have been able to stay "neutral": they're essentially unconquerable.
The mind boggles - how much of an asshole do you have to be to have children at that age?
These things are not always planned. It's easy to call other people assholes when you can imagine whatever circumstances you like to support your judgement. Jackass.
Walk over to a photocopier and yank one of the drawers open. Then open a book at Borders. To most people, that's what paper is, historical trivia notwithstanding.
The contents of the copier drawer and what most people believe notwithstanding, paper is processed cellulose pulp, and that pulp can contain cotton, linen, or any other material. Sure, the cheap stuff is wood based, but any time you get anything fancy (e.g. wedding invitations) you've got a piece of that "historical trivia" right in front of you. I'm sorry people don't know this. That doesn't mean they're not wrong.
You do know that "paper" does not automatically mean "wood pulp", right? Paper was at one time made by pounding up old linen and running the linen pulp through a press. "Paper" status has more to do with the material's suitability for writing upon rather than its makeup.
If there were ever a good time to post as Anonymous Coward, I think the tangential thread on counterfeiting Federal Reserve Notes must qualify.
Bah! The Crane's Crest trick is well known. The fact that I'm dirt-poor both according to my tax return AND my lifestyle is enough to make the feds yawn and change the channel. I'm way too lazy to be a criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
disregard above. got confused by an AC posting at score:0 I couldn't see. THought you were him. Sorry.
Because, as the GP poster said, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL. Assorted NON-federal jurisdictions have attempted to make posession of a police scanner illegal, but the feds repeatedly throw the laws out.
Ah yes....red capes were legal, blue tights were legal, red speedo and boots were legal, but posession of all four was "intent to impersonate Superman". The dumb part is that Superman is no more dangerous than any of the other superheroes, and it wasn't illegal to impersonate THEM!
True, but only ostensibly to certify that they don't also inadvertently transmit.
So? We're not talking about transceivers. You said "I suppose it is illegal to possess the "Cantenna" because it has not undergone government, ala FCC, testing." This is incorrect. Antennas alone do not undergo testing. Transmitters do. Transmitters are approved for use with specific antennas, i.e transmitter XYZ receives approval for use with antennas AA, BB, and CC. It may be perfectly legal to attach antenna DD to your XYZ transmitter, but XYZ Mfr Corp cannot sell the XYZ device with DD because that combination hasn't been FCC tested. This doesn't in any way make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or own a DD antenna as the FCC regulation applies to the transmitter, and really only the sale of it at that. So long as the gain falls within the signal power limits, you (the end user) can attach any dang antenna you want to that device.
Subtle (but critical) error in the above. They are not legal for sale on 802.11 equipment if they're not approved. Untested (i.e. not specifically approved by the FCC for that application) homebuilt antennas are perfectly legal so long as the home builder has made a reasonable effort to heep the gain within FCC transmission power limits. Even then, the worst the FCC can do its require that you stop using it upon finding out it does exceed the limit. (See FCC part 15 rules, specifically 15.23)
You suppose wrong. Antennas alone require no FCC testing. The FCC only regulates transmitters, and approves them for use with a specific antenna. An antenna alone is a freakin' metal stick, man. The FCC can't regulate the sale of springy bits of wire, regardless of whether the threaded end happens to fit a transmitter somewhere.
[comic book guy]
I believe the corner of a cube would leave a tri-angular scar
[/comic book guy]
either way, ouch...
Yeah, that's about the size of it. Their conclusion is essentially "people with predictable habits remain predictable 85% of the time". I say they should let us know when they can predict the destination of a fire truck with 85% accuracy.
Thousands of hits is nothing. Plenty to swamp an inbox or database, hardly a blip for an average commercial server.
"A spammer is going to send free advertising for his competition and hope that he's annoying enough to cause a backlash? Un-fucking-likely."
This claim relies on spammers not knowing how to check their log files. If 100,000 fake orders came from certain, specific, addresses - spam those addresses. DDOS away!
I'm sorry, but the above sentence is completely incoherent. What do log files have to do with the the fact that Company A is not likely going to send out free advertising for Company B on the off chance that people will be annoyed enough to retaliate against Company B?
A spammer is going to send free advertising for his competition and hope that he's annoying enough to cause a backlash? Un-fucking-likely.
Also, most spam sites are brand new hosting accounts set up on legitimate hosts with an automated sign-up process - not necessarily related to their mail servers. This means a response like this could be expected to catch a whole lot of innocent bystanders in the cross-fire - people who's only crime was to be hosted by a certain company.
If you'd RTFA, you'd know that it's not a DDOS, it's crapflooding their inbox. In order to make money, they gotta receive orders. The idea is not to overload their server's bandwidth, but rather render their response receiving system useless by making it too hard to find the legitimate orders amongst the thousands of ones saying "get stuffed!" or "send 100 million of your penis pills to me: GW Bush, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave".
So a Whozenflotz is going to run a free ad campaign for ACME and hope that it stirs up enough annoyance to trigger a an auto-reply DDOS? Sounds pretty fuckin' far fetched to me, man. It's pretty stupid to worry about the shine on your shoes when your house is on fire. I say we see if the system works at all instead of assuming it'll work too well.
Direct stimulation of the pleasure center would, in fact, be just like any other drug. This is a kind of tangential, though, to the device under discussion. I'm not at all sure what the anti-depression shocker thingy does because, like any respectable slashdot reader, I could not be bothered to RTFA.
But they don't know me. They will never know me.
By "know you" they mean "know what sort of tricks to use to goad you into buying". Name? Nah. They'd just as soon have you staple a nice barcode to your forehead. In all but a very few instances, knowing your name is just another trick for getting you to buy. "Hello, John Smith. We have recommendations for you."
I typed in "cigar' in the google search box, and sure enough, there was not a single ad, just search results. Did they ever exprese any reasoning behind this, or is it just explained away as "policy"? I tried a few other similar searches and found that "guns" is verboten, while "rifle" and "shotgun" are fine. Also "cigarettes" are out, but strangely not "cigarette". "Beer" and "whiskey" are apparently right out, but not "wine"-- because we all know wine drinkers are sophisticated bluebloods and whiskey and beer drinkers like in a trailer park and shoot each other with "guns" while smoking a "cigar", right? "Murder", "pedophelia", and "strangler" are apparently okey dokey as ad words though, with "strangler" even encouraging us to look for one on eBay.
Wouldn't work. Our brains don't measure things from a zero baseline, they do comparisons. Things like "fun", "pleasure", and even "pain" exist only as their requisite stimuli diverge from a running average baseline. In other words, constant stimulation of the pleasure center would fairly quickly become the new baseline, thus essentially rendering direct stimulation of the pleasure center "normal", and anything less than that "unpleasant".
It's probably because people share phones. They don't one one sensible person in the household to put the phone on the DNC list when the house could be full of gullible relatives who'd buy their "credit protection insurance", "crack-alley time-shares", or "fur-bearing trout farm investment opportunities".
I know what Schützenfest is-- the point I was trying to make is that a Swiss Schützenfest will inevitably have scores of Swiss citizens showing up with their government issued Stgw 90 (SG 550) rifles to show off their marksmanship.
Wasting work time is nothing new. Any time I now waste on browsing web sites is nothing compared to the time I wasted before I had internet access, doing things like building a spring-powered "crossbow" out of old door closer parts.
Nonsense. Farmers are against daylight saving time because they do everything by the sun. They start when the sun rises, and stop when it goes down, regardless of what time it is. A clock that jumps back and forth twice a year is an unnecessary complication that forces them to juggle their schedule when delivering crops to clock-bound businesses. Daylight saving time was instituted regionally in WWI and then made national in WW2 as an energy saving scheme.
Switzerland?
I think the more technically correct challenge should have been "show me a country that doesn't rely on it's ability to fight a war to keep the peace". In that case, Switzerland doesn't qualify as practically every dang person in the country has a government-issued assault rifle and attends Schutzenfest regularly, the idea being that the whole country is the army, even the women. This (plus the terrain) is the real reason why the Schweiz have been able to stay "neutral": they're essentially unconquerable.
Mostly by his 5 year old son I should think.
Sarah Doohan is a girl.
The mind boggles - how much of an asshole do you have to be to have children at that age?
These things are not always planned. It's easy to call other people assholes when you can imagine whatever circumstances you like to support your judgement. Jackass.
The contents of the copier drawer and what most people believe notwithstanding, paper is processed cellulose pulp, and that pulp can contain cotton, linen, or any other material. Sure, the cheap stuff is wood based, but any time you get anything fancy (e.g. wedding invitations) you've got a piece of that "historical trivia" right in front of you. I'm sorry people don't know this. That doesn't mean they're not wrong.
It's paper. Real money is mostly rag and linen.
You do know that "paper" does not automatically mean "wood pulp", right? Paper was at one time made by pounding up old linen and running the linen pulp through a press. "Paper" status has more to do with the material's suitability for writing upon rather than its makeup.
Bah! The Crane's Crest trick is well known. The fact that I'm dirt-poor both according to my tax return AND my lifestyle is enough to make the feds yawn and change the channel. I'm way too lazy to be a criminal.