I know I wouldn't get 55 hour of access but with 2 extra batteries if I could get 3+ hours that would be great.
As I mentioned above, I've been using my phone as a wifi hotspot for a long time.
However, I never use it that way when it's just me and my netbook. I use the USB cable. Using the phone as a wifi hotspot drains the battery in a fraction of the time it lasts when using the cable.
The appeal of the hotspot feature is for group situations, or when using a device that can't support USB connections (e.g., when my friend wants to get online with his iPod Touch while we're at a restaurant).
I trialled a local WiMAX service for about 6 months. The latency from my desktop to their network was something like 40ms. I got fairly steady 5mbps transfer speeds (though they advertised "up to 10mbps"). That's not terrible.
"It works as a Wi-Fi hotspot, supporting up to 8 devices;" Wow!
My 3-year-old Nokia phone (and really any Symbian S60 phone with wifi) does that, using a cheap program called JoikuSpot. I don't know how many client devices it supports simultaneously, but I've used it several times to provide connectivity for a conference room full of people.
Sucks batteries like you wouldn't believe, though. I can only run it for about an hour if it's not plugged in to the charger.
Thanks for that correction; having recently poked around your house and checked all your software versions while everyone was asleep, I could have sworn it was running 10.04.
On a five year time line, I think the Chinese could foster domestic consumption faster than the United States could rebuild manufacturing in the US, or reallocate it to other markets (Mexico, Vietnam, etc)
I'm not so sure about that. Without the plastic garbage money coming in from the USA, China will have a hard time paying their own people to buy the crap.
On the other hand, most of ASEAN would be desperate to get the business.
Dialects of spoken Chinese can be different from one another as Spanish is from French. Just because you can speak Mandarin doesn't mean you can speak Taiwanese.
Most of the search engines I've seen work with written rather than spoken language.
A more salient point may have been that PRC uses the Simplified Chinese writing system while ROC uses Traditional.
You said you would go to jail for buying them. There is no scenario under current law or any proposed law I have ever heard of in which this is true (unless you are referring to importing them for resale, which from the context you quite clearly were not).
Also, every time you see an 800 number in caller ID entry, it's false. You can't dial out on 800 lines. Whoever it is calling with 800 on their caller ID is actually calling from some other circuit.
In the era of VoIP, that statement has become largely meaningless.
Everyone gets a voip phone and we use DNS to assign numbers. Nice and simple. No spoofing IPs if you want to be able to hear what the other party is saying.
And completely useless caller ID from the 80% of callers who have dynamic IPs. "You have a new call from 218.111.13.197 (111.218.in-addr.arpa.static.tm.net.my). Answer or Reject?"
Since this law allows for blocking, it's actually pretty good. I can think of no legitimate reason to want to initiate a call and pretend to be someone else.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I effectively do this many times a day, to no nefarious end.
When a call comes to my office number and I don't pick it up, my phone system dials my mobile phone, spoofing the number so as to pretend to be the original caller, so I can see on my screen whether I want to answer it.
The companies who spoof are generally doing stuff that should be illegal anyway, right?
I "spoof". I purchase my incoming and outgoing service separately and from different vendors. I use different caller ID identification based on whom I am calling (one number for personal calls, another for business calls). They are both numbers that belong to me but there is no particular connection between that number and the "line" I am using to place the call.
I also forward calls from certain people to my mobile phone when I am not at my desk. In that case I am effectively placing a call to my mobile number, spoofing the CID to be that of the original caller, so I can see whether I want to answer it.
I would be very sad if I could no longer do these things, as they make my life a lot easier.
Well, the mercury contained in a CFL exists in a gaseous state
Okay, you win. I was not aware of that. That's the part that was missing at the end of your previous post, which now causes it to make apparent sense (not that I am in a position to verify the substance of the scientific claims).
Matching anecdote for anecdote, I live in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where the electricity company is run by mountain apes. However, of the 20-odd Philips and IKEA CFLs I purchased five years ago, not a single one has failed. So either something is very weird about your power, or something is weird about the bulbs you were sold. Or mountain apes really like CFLs.
You lost me with the hand-waving portion of your argument at the end.
I eat tuna.
I don't eat CFLs. Even if they're broken, I still resist the (admittedly compelling) temptation to eat them.
So how can you directly compare the quantities of mercury? In order to be making any sense, you'd have to figure out by what means the mercury from a broken CFL might get into someone's body, and then figure out how much of it would make this voyage, and how likely it was to happen. Maybe some people would touch it when cleaning up the broken bulb, and then lick their fingers (or absorb it through the skin)? I'm not sure; when I've seen broken CFLs I haven't seen anything that looked like mercury pooling on the floor, so either it's trapped inside something within the bulb that doesn't usually break, or, well, I don't know what.
My money's on the tuna remaining the primary culprit, by a large margin.
Um. Problem. This demonstrates that switching to CFLs did NOT reduce electrical usage.
Not really. If we assume that all other economic activity continued at its prior energy-to-outputs ratio, then it proves that switching did reduce electrical usage.
Of course, that's a very large assumption. But your conclusion requires an even larger one.
Probably the fairest conclusion is that without better data, it's difficult to say.
There might have been a cheaper and more sensible alternative, for example dedicate a road for public services (I have no clue about NYC so I am probably totally off).
No clue, I'd agree. You need to at least see New York before you make guesses about what works there. The density is not like anything anywhere else in the country. There is no room at street level for anything new. The subway system carries almost eight million people every day. If those people were in cars by themselves, as is typical in other American cities, the parking lot would take up most of northern New Jersey. Subways are the only answer. It is in the public interest to facilitate the rapid movement of people to their jobs. New York City produces a vast economic surplus which goes out to the rest of the country; it makes sense to spend public money on making that work more smoothly.
The foreign workers are often poor but citizens of Saudi Arabia seem pretty well off from what I've read.
Some are, but a great number are not. They live in crummy little two-room cinder block houses in hideously depressing desert-edge towns. And in a society where productivity is anathema, a massive number depend on government largesse which further erodes their sense of participation in the economy.
Don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps this says more about how dimwitted you are than how clever he is.
If that were the case, wouldn't you expect that I would have the same reaction to large numbers of Yale professors and therefore not find my assessment of Tufte noteworthy enough to report? I suppose it's possible that I'm so dimwitted I didn't even make that connection.
I'm confused. How do you execute apache if it's on a readonly and noexec partition?
As I said above, binaries are in the readonly partition and everything else is in the noexec partition.
Plus, your "leaving aside a kernel bug" seems odd, since there have been a number of such kernel bugs. The most recent was just a few days ago. http://www.debian.com/security/2010/dsa-2005
Tricking a process into running your code by manipulating the stack or similar shenanigans doesn't get you privileges beyond those the process already had (leaving aside a kernel bug).
There is nothing running suid and nothing running as root once Apache drops privileges, which happens before it forks its user-facing children.
And remember, in this setup the only code you will run is code you manage to inject live into a running process. You cannot run executables from disk except those that were already installed before boot, due to the combination of ro and noexec mounts.
Whoosh. The output in the posting to which you replied was demonstrating that it's not a root exploit, it's an exploit of the account 'www-data'.
On web servers I run, all executable code (apache, log rotator, etc.) is on a partition mounted readonly and nosuid. Data is on a partition mounted noexec. Nothing in the file system outside of/tmp is writable by www-data. So compromising that account gets you very little. You can't run code (except in the web server's scripting context, which doesn't get you any farther than you were when you compromised it - and doesn't get you any closer to running code as root), you can't change files. All you can hope to do is mess with the database; basically the same as what you could do if you found a hole in the site scripts.
Just another feel good appointment of an academic to a position where they can't really do anything.
I took a grad school seminar with him at Yale. The man is loopy, but he has a truly powerful brain. He comes up with ways of looking at problems that are like time bombs. First you think he's a crackpot - how could anyone propose something so ridiculous? Then a few days later, it's been stewing in the back of your head, and your mindly slowly blows as you realise just how much cleverer it is than anything you've heard before. Simply putting him near anything involving information is almost guaranteed to make it better somehow.
Slashdot Mirror
As I mentioned above, I've been using my phone as a wifi hotspot for a long time.
However, I never use it that way when it's just me and my netbook. I use the USB cable. Using the phone as a wifi hotspot drains the battery in a fraction of the time it lasts when using the cable.
The appeal of the hotspot feature is for group situations, or when using a device that can't support USB connections (e.g., when my friend wants to get online with his iPod Touch while we're at a restaurant).
I trialled a local WiMAX service for about 6 months. The latency from my desktop to their network was something like 40ms. I got fairly steady 5mbps transfer speeds (though they advertised "up to 10mbps"). That's not terrible.
My 3-year-old Nokia phone (and really any Symbian S60 phone with wifi) does that, using a cheap program called JoikuSpot. I don't know how many client devices it supports simultaneously, but I've used it several times to provide connectivity for a conference room full of people.
Sucks batteries like you wouldn't believe, though. I can only run it for about an hour if it's not plugged in to the charger.
Thanks for that correction; having recently poked around your house and checked all your software versions while everyone was asleep, I could have sworn it was running 10.04.
I'm not so sure about that. Without the plastic garbage money coming in from the USA, China will have a hard time paying their own people to buy the crap.
On the other hand, most of ASEAN would be desperate to get the business.
Most of the search engines I've seen work with written rather than spoken language.
A more salient point may have been that PRC uses the Simplified Chinese writing system while ROC uses Traditional.
You said you would go to jail for buying them. There is no scenario under current law or any proposed law I have ever heard of in which this is true (unless you are referring to importing them for resale, which from the context you quite clearly were not).
In the era of VoIP, that statement has become largely meaningless.
That doesn't even have the tiniest bit to do with why the phone company makes it hard to get an ISDN line.
And completely useless caller ID from the 80% of callers who have dynamic IPs. "You have a new call from 218.111.13.197 (111.218.in-addr.arpa.static.tm.net.my). Answer or Reject?"
As I mentioned elsewhere, I effectively do this many times a day, to no nefarious end.
When a call comes to my office number and I don't pick it up, my phone system dials my mobile phone, spoofing the number so as to pretend to be the original caller, so I can see on my screen whether I want to answer it.
I "spoof". I purchase my incoming and outgoing service separately and from different vendors. I use different caller ID identification based on whom I am calling (one number for personal calls, another for business calls). They are both numbers that belong to me but there is no particular connection between that number and the "line" I am using to place the call.
I also forward calls from certain people to my mobile phone when I am not at my desk. In that case I am effectively placing a call to my mobile number, spoofing the CID to be that of the original caller, so I can see whether I want to answer it.
I would be very sad if I could no longer do these things, as they make my life a lot easier.
No they haven't. They are prohibiting the production and commercial import of certain incandescent bulbs. Nobody is going to jail for buying anything.
Okay, you win. I was not aware of that. That's the part that was missing at the end of your previous post, which now causes it to make apparent sense (not that I am in a position to verify the substance of the scientific claims).
Matching anecdote for anecdote, I live in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where the electricity company is run by mountain apes. However, of the 20-odd Philips and IKEA CFLs I purchased five years ago, not a single one has failed. So either something is very weird about your power, or something is weird about the bulbs you were sold. Or mountain apes really like CFLs.
Lucky for you, nobody has passed such a law, nor seems vaguely likely to.
You lost me with the hand-waving portion of your argument at the end.
I eat tuna.
I don't eat CFLs. Even if they're broken, I still resist the (admittedly compelling) temptation to eat them.
So how can you directly compare the quantities of mercury? In order to be making any sense, you'd have to figure out by what means the mercury from a broken CFL might get into someone's body, and then figure out how much of it would make this voyage, and how likely it was to happen. Maybe some people would touch it when cleaning up the broken bulb, and then lick their fingers (or absorb it through the skin)? I'm not sure; when I've seen broken CFLs I haven't seen anything that looked like mercury pooling on the floor, so either it's trapped inside something within the bulb that doesn't usually break, or, well, I don't know what.
My money's on the tuna remaining the primary culprit, by a large margin.
Not really. If we assume that all other economic activity continued at its prior energy-to-outputs ratio, then it proves that switching did reduce electrical usage.
Of course, that's a very large assumption. But your conclusion requires an even larger one.
Probably the fairest conclusion is that without better data, it's difficult to say.
No clue, I'd agree. You need to at least see New York before you make guesses about what works there. The density is not like anything anywhere else in the country. There is no room at street level for anything new. The subway system carries almost eight million people every day. If those people were in cars by themselves, as is typical in other American cities, the parking lot would take up most of northern New Jersey. Subways are the only answer. It is in the public interest to facilitate the rapid movement of people to their jobs. New York City produces a vast economic surplus which goes out to the rest of the country; it makes sense to spend public money on making that work more smoothly.
Some are, but a great number are not. They live in crummy little two-room cinder block houses in hideously depressing desert-edge towns. And in a society where productivity is anathema, a massive number depend on government largesse which further erodes their sense of participation in the economy.
If that were the case, wouldn't you expect that I would have the same reaction to large numbers of Yale professors and therefore not find my assessment of Tufte noteworthy enough to report? I suppose it's possible that I'm so dimwitted I didn't even make that connection.
As I said above, binaries are in the readonly partition and everything else is in the noexec partition.
Good thing we run FreeBSD.
Tricking a process into running your code by manipulating the stack or similar shenanigans doesn't get you privileges beyond those the process already had (leaving aside a kernel bug).
There is nothing running suid and nothing running as root once Apache drops privileges, which happens before it forks its user-facing children.
And remember, in this setup the only code you will run is code you manage to inject live into a running process. You cannot run executables from disk except those that were already installed before boot, due to the combination of ro and noexec mounts.
Whoosh. The output in the posting to which you replied was demonstrating that it's not a root exploit, it's an exploit of the account 'www-data'.
On web servers I run, all executable code (apache, log rotator, etc.) is on a partition mounted readonly and nosuid. Data is on a partition mounted noexec. Nothing in the file system outside of /tmp is writable by www-data. So compromising that account gets you very little. You can't run code (except in the web server's scripting context, which doesn't get you any farther than you were when you compromised it - and doesn't get you any closer to running code as root), you can't change files. All you can hope to do is mess with the database; basically the same as what you could do if you found a hole in the site scripts.
I took a grad school seminar with him at Yale. The man is loopy, but he has a truly powerful brain. He comes up with ways of looking at problems that are like time bombs. First you think he's a crackpot - how could anyone propose something so ridiculous? Then a few days later, it's been stewing in the back of your head, and your mindly slowly blows as you realise just how much cleverer it is than anything you've heard before. Simply putting him near anything involving information is almost guaranteed to make it better somehow.