The President has said some incredibly stupid things. I spent more time than most people making fun of him for them. Drunken-sounding, inane ramblings. Maybe it's immature, but I love making fun of the dumb things he said.
I read this in the newspaper, with an article trying to poke fun at him while still sounding professional and reverent. My first reaction was "I hope we don't stop thinking about it!"
Maybe the real answer is to get these SUVs and minivans off the road
Crashing into any car head-on is going to be hazardous. Whether it's a minivan, SUV, 18-wheeler, or motorcycle.
and establish weight and bumper-height limits for cars.
Not sure I agree with the weight limit. However, as several others have pointed out, I really don't see why there isn't a standard bumper-height limit.
It's not even close. My van has a normal-height bumper. But if drove something low to the ground, like my dad's Outback, I could easily plow right under a taller truck, not hitting anything until my windshield collided with their back bumper.
My friend drives a Mazda sedan. He rear-ended a Buick sedan, that really wasn't even a different size. He ended up going under the car. Granted, slamming on the brakes will cause your car to dip down (perhaps a hazardous thing in and of itself), but two cars of roughly the same size shouldn't be winding up underneath the other. It's not just a "those hulking SUVs versus everyone else" problem.
Bumpers are completely pointless if they're not at about the same height.
If I recall correctly, for a while, it was actually illegal to drive a car at all for a while. The law wasn't *meant* to do that.
I'm *really* wishing I could find the link, but I'm almost positive that some sort of requirement on the sale of cars was brainlessly implemented, outlawing cars.
Again, not suggesting for a minute that people stopped using cars because of the law. Just pointing out that I don't consider California to be the epitome of normal/rational laws.
Wasn't it California -- maybe just a city in CA -- that has a $500 fine for use of nuclear weapons?
He died in pursuit of knowledge, but calling him a hero is a bit much.
I was going to bite my tongue, but I was thinking the same thing. Don't get me wrong; his death is a definite tragedy, and working on alternative transportation sources is a good thing.
I really don't want to sound callous, but I think we're calling everyone a hero nowadays, and it's not remotely correct. Being killed in a terrorist attack is an incredibly tragedy, but it doesn't make you a hero in any way. Putting your life on the line to rescue a drowning boy would.
Again, not trying to demean him, or suggest that his work was anything but valuable, or to imply that his death wasn't tragic. I just have to agree with servognome's objection to the word "hero."
People would beat the shit out of random combination locks on peoples lockers, you couldn't get your locker open. Bastards.
In middle school, you had to rent a lock from the school if you wanted to put one on your locker. Just by chance one day, I noticed how crappy the locks were: you simply pulled down on the lock, and twisted the dial left, and it'd just open.
Swapping people's locks was a bit of fun, but stealing someone's lock proved a good way to mess with their head.
So you've got a streaming music station above your garage, and a guerrilla movie theater in your garage?
(Cut out some plywood the size of your windows and paint it white, and pop it over the windows when you're showing a movie. Or just go for cheap and stick a few layers of white construction paper over them.)
At my local doctor's office, there's a computer in every room, for patient records, prescriptions, etc. A paperloss office, so to speak. And I assure you, my doctor's typing skills aren't so great. (Maybe it's just a carryover from doctors' handwriting skills?)
This law is frightening. I know it's not at all what's intended, but suppose you write my boss a death threat. I see it -- I'm now a person who knows the contents.
I give the message to my boss, telling him someone just wrote it out, and urging him to call 911.
Do I spent 7 years in jail for telling him someone's threatening to kill him?
I know, it's not what the law was meant to do. But that's precisely why it scares me.
Not only is the whole TiVO thing not a reason to not get VoIP service, it's also not even really accurate.
In many cases, people will pull a VoIP line into their house, from Vonage, for example. You get an ATA: Analog Telephone Adapter. So you use your normal telephones, and they go out over the Vonage line. So as far as your telephones (and thus the TiVO) are concerned, it's a POTS line.
I've kind of been thinking about how nifty it would be to get VoIP, but things like the inability to dial 911, and the fact that my ISP sometimes tanks for days at a time (hasn't happened in a long time... knock on wood) scare me. But then I decided that it'd make a lot of sense to keep my POTS line, and just *add* a VoIP line. Something like Asterisk can be used to build a nice PBX, and route calls over the appropriate line, depending on which is cheaper / which is available.
So really, the only point of the article is that having your only phone line come in over your cable connection is a bad idea. And that, if you ran VoIP phones internally, you'd need a $20 accessory to use your TiVO.
I knew that Saddam guy was up to something. Sure, we haven't found any WMDs in Iraq, but I feel much safer knowing that, thanks to Bush, the cell tower down the road a ways won't be the next terrorist location.
I don't believe he uses Free Software; that means that Microsoft is not satisfying their customers, and Free Software can perform better than Microsoft.
What? You don't think they're talking about free software, so it must be anti-Microsoft, so it must be pro-free-software? I think what's being said is that software as a whole is sometimes not laid out with usability in mind. It's not saying Free Software is better. It's not saying it's worse.
Am I completely misinterpreting what was said? Or is this the most ridiculous comment ever made?
I've got my own domain, hosted on a server running cPanel. I initially created blackhole@mydomain.com, which cPanel lets me conviently 'forward' to:blackhole: (ie, the mail goes nowhere at all). Eventually, I realized some places (ie, AOL IM signup pages) limited how many times you could use the same address, so I created the whole subdomain of blackhole.mydomain.com.
All my friends know that mail sent there goes nowhere, so several of us use it for mail when we *know* it will serve no legitimate purpose.
I also have a catchall at my main domain (not blackhole.), so mail to any non-existant address works its way to me. This way I can give companies e-mails like amazon@mydomain.com; if they start getting spam, it's obvious where they're coming from, and then I just set up a 'redirect' again to either:fail: or:blackhole: the mail.
For those really sick of e-mail nightmares, spending $6.49 a year, plus a few bucks for hosting, is definitely worth it.
I built my computer a couple years ago, but I decided I wanted to do dual head, so I went for a special dual-head AGP card. I think I spent about $100 on it. (It's a 16 MB card; it wasn't nearly the fastest thing out there even when I built it.)
Anyway, it now seems like it'd be significantly cheaper to have put a pair of mid-range PCI cards in, rather than a single card. A single dual card might have performance advantages, but I feel like I paid through the nose for it.
Granted, this was a bit ago. It could be that it's actually cheaper to go for a dual card now. But I'd intuitively doubt it.
I read through your whole post, wondering exactly what your point was. Sure, they could be helping someone else who needs it more, and sure, they could be doing more.
But when all we hear about right now is corporate greed, I think it's great that they're helping. You can always do more, but if you spend all your time trying to find who needs help even more, you'll never end up helping anyone.
And, IMHO, your random bashing of HP doesn't help whatever point you were trying to make at all.
The fact that this is happening is interesting, but this sort of thing's always been possible.
First off, any sort of digital phone line lets you set your own caller ID info, it's just that most home users can't afford bringing a T1 into their home just to mess with caller ID.
Secondly, there've always been ways around caller ID anyway. A common one is called 'op diverting,' where you route your call through an operator, who will, in many cases, manually key in your Caller ID info with no authentication at all.
There are real privacy concerns here, but my point is, for those alarmed by them... Be even more alarmed. This is entirely doable without VoIP.
I don't know about getting blocked caller ID, though 800 numbers (and, IIRC, almost all high-volume digital lines?) have full access to caller ID, even if you block it.
The point of the article, IMHO, is that VoIP providers are carelessly sending this data, not the exploits that can be done -- they already exist. And you can almost argue that VoIP providers aren't entirely wrong here -- if you got a PRI line to your home, you could do this type of stuff anyway.
The way it's supposed to work is that the "Don't look here" flag is sent along at every 'hop,' and the last one -- the one on the last switch, *before* it gets to you, will finally read it and omit the Caller ID info.
The issue here is that some VoIP providers aren't doing that final step, and they pass the data along to you.
It's truncated in the wrong place. In the years I've been posting here, you're the second person to comment on it.
The problem is that I use a ton of _'s to form a line above it, which eats away at my character count. All I have to do is remove one of them, and the "1" at the end of "200" will show up.
Except I find it bizarrely amusing, and kind of hope it makes people wonder if the date's in some really bizarre format.;)
Articles posted to Slashdot this month already have over 30 mistakes! Critics claims that some articles posted on the popular technology news site are even duplicates of articles already posted. And those that aren't duplicates, one reader claims, are often riddled with typos.
I always thought the whole point of BitTorrent was that, as the demand increased, the available bandwidth rose proportionally. I'm downloading the SuprNova one (2042, the one without CAM in its title), at a whopping 5 KiB/sec, with an estimated 79 hours left. I'm uploading at 9 (was 15 a minute ago) KiB/sec. (Actually, at some point my upload will start to cut into my download... I need a traffic shaper. But that doesn't seem to be the issue yet, as much of my pipe is still unused.)
Is anyone else getting the absolutely abysmal speeds I'm getting? When Slashdot links to something like this, and when there aren't (m)any alternatives, I'd expect to be getting insane speeds. I'm a bit of a n00b to BitTorrent, but am I not right here?
Slashdot Mirror
The President has said some incredibly stupid things. I spent more time than most people making fun of him for them. Drunken-sounding, inane ramblings. Maybe it's immature, but I love making fun of the dumb things he said.
I read this in the newspaper, with an article trying to poke fun at him while still sounding professional and reverent. My first reaction was "I hope we don't stop thinking about it!"
Maybe the real answer is to get these SUVs and minivans off the road
Crashing into any car head-on is going to be hazardous. Whether it's a minivan, SUV, 18-wheeler, or motorcycle.
and establish weight and bumper-height limits for cars.
Not sure I agree with the weight limit. However, as several others have pointed out, I really don't see why there isn't a standard bumper-height limit.
It's not even close. My van has a normal-height bumper. But if drove something low to the ground, like my dad's Outback, I could easily plow right under a taller truck, not hitting anything until my windshield collided with their back bumper.
My friend drives a Mazda sedan. He rear-ended a Buick sedan, that really wasn't even a different size. He ended up going under the car. Granted, slamming on the brakes will cause your car to dip down (perhaps a hazardous thing in and of itself), but two cars of roughly the same size shouldn't be winding up underneath the other. It's not just a "those hulking SUVs versus everyone else" problem.
Bumpers are completely pointless if they're not at about the same height.
If I recall correctly, for a while, it was actually illegal to drive a car at all for a while. The law wasn't *meant* to do that.
I'm *really* wishing I could find the link, but I'm almost positive that some sort of requirement on the sale of cars was brainlessly implemented, outlawing cars.
Again, not suggesting for a minute that people stopped using cars because of the law. Just pointing out that I don't consider California to be the epitome of normal/rational laws.
Wasn't it California -- maybe just a city in CA -- that has a $500 fine for use of nuclear weapons?
He died in pursuit of knowledge, but calling him a hero is a bit much.
I was going to bite my tongue, but I was thinking the same thing. Don't get me wrong; his death is a definite tragedy, and working on alternative transportation sources is a good thing.
I really don't want to sound callous, but I think we're calling everyone a hero nowadays, and it's not remotely correct. Being killed in a terrorist attack is an incredibly tragedy, but it doesn't make you a hero in any way. Putting your life on the line to rescue a drowning boy would.
Again, not trying to demean him, or suggest that his work was anything but valuable, or to imply that his death wasn't tragic. I just have to agree with servognome's objection to the word "hero."
There are several plugins for Mozilla (and Firefox) that forge your UserAgent string.
I was running Internet Explorer 8 for a while... Fooled most of the sites that "rely" on IE, but really work just as well in Mozilla.
People would beat the shit out of random combination locks on peoples lockers, you couldn't get your locker open. Bastards.
In middle school, you had to rent a lock from the school if you wanted to put one on your locker. Just by chance one day, I noticed how crappy the locks were: you simply pulled down on the lock, and twisted the dial left, and it'd just open.
Swapping people's locks was a bit of fun, but stealing someone's lock proved a good way to mess with their head.
So you've got a streaming music station above your garage, and a guerrilla movie theater in your garage?
(Cut out some plywood the size of your windows and paint it white, and pop it over the windows when you're showing a movie. Or just go for cheap and stick a few layers of white construction paper over them.)
At my local doctor's office, there's a computer in every room, for patient records, prescriptions, etc. A paperloss office, so to speak. And I assure you, my doctor's typing skills aren't so great. (Maybe it's just a carryover from doctors' handwriting skills?)
Froogles is the guy in New York. Froogle (no s) is Google, on Sept. 11th.
I was thinking about the unfortunate registration date, but the New York thing isn't Google's doing; that's the other guy.
Although still an interesting coincidence.
Just do a search for related:www.google.com, and Google will tell you.
Oh, wait...
I've got this open in a tab in Mozilla. The title is truncated, fittingly enough, into "Slashdot | 419ers Diversify Into Ass....".
This law is frightening. I know it's not at all what's intended, but suppose you write my boss a death threat. I see it -- I'm now a person who knows the contents.
I give the message to my boss, telling him someone just wrote it out, and urging him to call 911.
Do I spent 7 years in jail for telling him someone's threatening to kill him?
I know, it's not what the law was meant to do. But that's precisely why it scares me.
Not only is the whole TiVO thing not a reason to not get VoIP service, it's also not even really accurate.
In many cases, people will pull a VoIP line into their house, from Vonage, for example. You get an ATA: Analog Telephone Adapter. So you use your normal telephones, and they go out over the Vonage line. So as far as your telephones (and thus the TiVO) are concerned, it's a POTS line.
I've kind of been thinking about how nifty it would be to get VoIP, but things like the inability to dial 911, and the fact that my ISP sometimes tanks for days at a time (hasn't happened in a long time... knock on wood) scare me. But then I decided that it'd make a lot of sense to keep my POTS line, and just *add* a VoIP line. Something like Asterisk can be used to build a nice PBX, and route calls over the appropriate line, depending on which is cheaper / which is available.
So really, the only point of the article is that having your only phone line come in over your cable connection is a bad idea. And that, if you ran VoIP phones internally, you'd need a $20 accessory to use your TiVO.
I's possible I'm under a rock, or that I'm completely oblivious (it's like 3 AM, after all), but who said Slashdot's moving to JSP?
I knew that Saddam guy was up to something. Sure, we haven't found any WMDs in Iraq, but I feel much safer knowing that, thanks to Bush, the cell tower down the road a ways won't be the next terrorist location.
I don't believe he uses Free Software; that means that Microsoft is not satisfying their customers, and Free Software can perform better than Microsoft.
What? You don't think they're talking about free software, so it must be anti-Microsoft, so it must be pro-free-software? I think what's being said is that software as a whole is sometimes not laid out with usability in mind. It's not saying Free Software is better. It's not saying it's worse.
Am I completely misinterpreting what was said? Or is this the most ridiculous comment ever made?
I've got my own domain, hosted on a server running cPanel. I initially created blackhole@mydomain.com, which cPanel lets me conviently 'forward' to :blackhole: (ie, the mail goes nowhere at all). Eventually, I realized some places (ie, AOL IM signup pages) limited how many times you could use the same address, so I created the whole subdomain of blackhole.mydomain.com.
:fail: or :blackhole: the mail.
All my friends know that mail sent there goes nowhere, so several of us use it for mail when we *know* it will serve no legitimate purpose.
I also have a catchall at my main domain (not blackhole.), so mail to any non-existant address works its way to me. This way I can give companies e-mails like amazon@mydomain.com; if they start getting spam, it's obvious where they're coming from, and then I just set up a 'redirect' again to either
For those really sick of e-mail nightmares, spending $6.49 a year, plus a few bucks for hosting, is definitely worth it.
I built my computer a couple years ago, but I decided I wanted to do dual head, so I went for a special dual-head AGP card. I think I spent about $100 on it. (It's a 16 MB card; it wasn't nearly the fastest thing out there even when I built it.)
Anyway, it now seems like it'd be significantly cheaper to have put a pair of mid-range PCI cards in, rather than a single card. A single dual card might have performance advantages, but I feel like I paid through the nose for it.
Granted, this was a bit ago. It could be that it's actually cheaper to go for a dual card now. But I'd intuitively doubt it.
And no HP, please.
I read through your whole post, wondering exactly what your point was. Sure, they could be helping someone else who needs it more, and sure, they could be doing more.
But when all we hear about right now is corporate greed, I think it's great that they're helping. You can always do more, but if you spend all your time trying to find who needs help even more, you'll never end up helping anyone.
And, IMHO, your random bashing of HP doesn't help whatever point you were trying to make at all.
The fact that this is happening is interesting, but this sort of thing's always been possible.
First off, any sort of digital phone line lets you set your own caller ID info, it's just that most home users can't afford bringing a T1 into their home just to mess with caller ID.
Secondly, there've always been ways around caller ID anyway. A common one is called 'op diverting,' where you route your call through an operator, who will, in many cases, manually key in your Caller ID info with no authentication at all.
There are real privacy concerns here, but my point is, for those alarmed by them... Be even more alarmed. This is entirely doable without VoIP.
I don't know about getting blocked caller ID, though 800 numbers (and, IIRC, almost all high-volume digital lines?) have full access to caller ID, even if you block it.
The point of the article, IMHO, is that VoIP providers are carelessly sending this data, not the exploits that can be done -- they already exist. And you can almost argue that VoIP providers aren't entirely wrong here -- if you got a PRI line to your home, you could do this type of stuff anyway.
The way it's supposed to work is that the "Don't look here" flag is sent along at every 'hop,' and the last one -- the one on the last switch, *before* it gets to you, will finally read it and omit the Caller ID info.
The issue here is that some VoIP providers aren't doing that final step, and they pass the data along to you.
It's not as if you're normally getting this data.
It's truncated in the wrong place. In the years I've been posting here, you're the second person to comment on it.
;)
The problem is that I use a ton of _'s to form a line above it, which eats away at my character count. All I have to do is remove one of them, and the "1" at the end of "200" will show up.
Except I find it bizarrely amusing, and kind of hope it makes people wonder if the date's in some really bizarre format.
Articles posted to Slashdot this month already have over 30 mistakes! Critics claims that some articles posted on the popular technology news site are even duplicates of articles already posted. And those that aren't duplicates, one reader claims, are often riddled with typos.
I always thought the whole point of BitTorrent was that, as the demand increased, the available bandwidth rose proportionally. I'm downloading the SuprNova one (2042, the one without CAM in its title), at a whopping 5 KiB/sec, with an estimated 79 hours left. I'm uploading at 9 (was 15 a minute ago) KiB/sec. (Actually, at some point my upload will start to cut into my download... I need a traffic shaper. But that doesn't seem to be the issue yet, as much of my pipe is still unused.)
Is anyone else getting the absolutely abysmal speeds I'm getting? When Slashdot links to something like this, and when there aren't (m)any alternatives, I'd expect to be getting insane speeds. I'm a bit of a n00b to BitTorrent, but am I not right here?
This looks like one of the ones already posted, just linked to on a different site.