The travel ban is, not the laptop ban. The only "controversy" there was Trump telling Putin about the threat, which didn't phase me in the least. I put it in quotes because it was an invented controversy. Worse, the paper publishing the report on it basically revealed to the world everything they thought was too troubling/dangerous to share. Reading the article was all you needed to do to know that it was an Israeli asset in one of two cities (but almost certainly Raqqa), while insisting that revealing which city the planning was happening in was an unforgivable breach. Smooth move.
Yeah, it would suck to not have my laptop on a long flight, but the ban made sense. Even if there wasn't evidence that terrorists were planning to pack them with explosives, it seems like an obvious method for getting a bomb on a plane. And it's not like someone is going to cancel trip to the other side of the world just because they can't bring their laptop in the cabin. If you don't have a tablet (couldn't they carry explosives too?), bring a damn book!
Video streaming apps tend not to wake up well in my experience, needing a force-quit/reopen cycle to reestablish their connection. Worse, they can interfere with what's running in the foreground. I've had to force-quit supposedly frozen streaming apps in order to get a browser to work many times. Most times really.
Plus, screw Apple for making me say 'apps'. I feel like an asshole every time I do. Popularizing that term might be the worst thing they ever did.
Which is why the US and USSR signed the ABM Treaty in '72. But also why the Star Wars program is considered a key factor in the collapse of the USSR.
Bilateral treaties limiting where ABM systems can be located are one thing, but an outright ban won't fly. Nor should it - if everyone has the ability to shoot down ICBMs, then they become useless. So long as the first nations to implement them are liberal democracies, the odds of lasers being used to prevent retaliation for a first strike are quite slim as they face prohibitively high non-military costs from using a nuke. As would any nation dependant on global trade, which covers all nuclear powers, at least for the time being.
Besides, you'd need an awful lot of these to take down every warhead in a mass launch scenario. Even if 99.9% effective, Russia would still get about 18 strategic warheads through. And that's only counting one class of warhead.
Somebody sits down at your computer and wants to find your login for something. They go to the site, your password gets filled in by the browser and.... Nothing, because it's masked.
I don't like it. Diversity gone stupid is ruling their programming. It's like half their characters have to be gay, and every ethnic minority has to be represented before a script is approved.
The UK is 92% white. LGBT folks make up between 2-10% of any population. These are facts.
I watch for entertainment, not to have some loudmouth with a cause wrapped up in a false narrative force their views at me. The only narrative I'm interested in having presented is the plot.
I don't think US cell phones operate in that range anymore. Not since they went fully digital.
That's an interesting idea though - criminal organizations setting up their own towers. Though I don't think they'd be able to tie it into the national phone system, so it would be rather more like a 2-way radio setup.
It's not legal for individuals to jam, but the FCC grants waivers to government agencies and law enforcement, and may soon allow State prisons to use them. There's also the "managed access" solution, where the prison basically has it's own short range tower.
Are you sure about that? I know it's true for short and medium wave signals, but microwaves like cell and wifi don't bounce around the upper atmosphere the same way. At least so far as I know, which may not be all that far.
But that's not the important part. The important bit is that the range of a jammer isn't limited to one mile. They don't have to be that loud to work. You can get one that only works within 30, 300 feet, whatever. Government agencies can get waivers to use them, and this includes prisons. Someone commented here that there are prisons with a small jammer in every cell. Which I assume was done for reasons other than providing a basis for puns.
Venture Capitalists know they're taking a big risk when they invest. All investment carries risk. They know they might lose more often than they win, and it's okay so long as the wins are big.
If anything, this is a positive story about booming investment in entrepreneurship.
Is ExxonMobil itself generating 2% of global emissions, or is it providing the oil that, once burned by the customer, generates 2% of global emissions?
I'll accept the criticism if it's the former, but not the latter.
Well, that's kinda silly and I'll tell you why. Prisons have both landlines and infirmaries! If a guard needs to make an emergency call, they have landlines. If someone needs to make an emergency call to a guard, they call the prison.
And you make sure your jammer (if that's the option they choose) doesn't broadcast far enough to cut off grandma next door.
I know it's easy to forget now, but cell phones aren't the only way to communicate. Worst case, people next to prisons get landlines because they aren't getting cell service at home.
Hardly! For one, there's more than one way to skin the cell-blocking cat. Don't want to risk interfering with nearby signals? Doesn't the carrier know where a handset is within a few feet? Certainly with enough accuracy to prevent calls on prison grounds.
Or what about carefully arranged directional antennas to broadcast jamming noise? Put them around the prison, pointing inwards and broadcasting just loud enough so that their cumulative effect is to block signals in the prison, but not loud enough so that their individual broadcasts interfere with signals outside the prison. Sure, maybe you only get one bar next to the prison wall, but that's hardly a major issue.
I'm not saying there aren't people in prison that shouldn't be there. Nor am I saying the guards are pillars of virtue. All I'm saying is that prisons should block cell signals. Let the guards be inconvenienced. Their job involves preventing contraband like phones from getting in and unmonitored communication from getting out. They should appreciate the help.
"Good news CO, you don't have to worry about illicit cell phones anymore. You're welcome!"
A "no drones over prisons" rule should be simple enough, but I don't see much room for a public safety argument for keeping prisons from jamming cell phones. It's not like they would be the first government facilities that block cell signals.
My bet is that the FCC's rules on interference are why they can't jam, and nobody has bothered to ask for an exception. My second bet is that they could go to the cell providers directly and have them refuse connections from prison grounds. Either by triangulating the location of the phone or using the GPS data
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't worry about it. So long as you don't rob them anyhow.
A "waking nightmare" endured by anyone who shares a name with someone famous, or whose parents decided to name them after a thing.
They're certainly acting like that was the worst crime ever committed.
The travel ban is, not the laptop ban. The only "controversy" there was Trump telling Putin about the threat, which didn't phase me in the least. I put it in quotes because it was an invented controversy. Worse, the paper publishing the report on it basically revealed to the world everything they thought was too troubling/dangerous to share. Reading the article was all you needed to do to know that it was an Israeli asset in one of two cities (but almost certainly Raqqa), while insisting that revealing which city the planning was happening in was an unforgivable breach. Smooth move.
Yeah, it would suck to not have my laptop on a long flight, but the ban made sense. Even if there wasn't evidence that terrorists were planning to pack them with explosives, it seems like an obvious method for getting a bomb on a plane. And it's not like someone is going to cancel trip to the other side of the world just because they can't bring their laptop in the cabin. If you don't have a tablet (couldn't they carry explosives too?), bring a damn book!
Maybe even have a second switcher just for the frozen ones, as I bet that most people tap the icon instead of using the switcher anyhow.
Plus, screw Apple for making me say 'apps'. I feel like an asshole every time I do. Popularizing that term might be the worst thing they ever did.
Still kinda neat, but I'll hold off until games can use it.
As in, "they can demand anything, even if they know they won't get it, which they wouldn't"?
Meaningfully? They can't. They can try, but there's no way to enforce their decision. So they probably won't try.
Bilateral treaties limiting where ABM systems can be located are one thing, but an outright ban won't fly. Nor should it - if everyone has the ability to shoot down ICBMs, then they become useless. So long as the first nations to implement them are liberal democracies, the odds of lasers being used to prevent retaliation for a first strike are quite slim as they face prohibitively high non-military costs from using a nuke. As would any nation dependant on global trade, which covers all nuclear powers, at least for the time being.
Besides, you'd need an awful lot of these to take down every warhead in a mass launch scenario. Even if 99.9% effective, Russia would still get about 18 strategic warheads through. And that's only counting one class of warhead.
Somebody sits down at your computer and wants to find your login for something. They go to the site, your password gets filled in by the browser and.... Nothing, because it's masked.
What about saved passwords in your browser?
And that's not even counting Shodan. I wonder how many of the "hacking attempts" it was responsible for...
Tracking who enters and leaves that is.
The UK is 92% white. LGBT folks make up between 2-10% of any population. These are facts.
I watch for entertainment, not to have some loudmouth with a cause wrapped up in a false narrative force their views at me. The only narrative I'm interested in having presented is the plot.
That's an interesting idea though - criminal organizations setting up their own towers. Though I don't think they'd be able to tie it into the national phone system, so it would be rather more like a 2-way radio setup.
It's not legal for individuals to jam, but the FCC grants waivers to government agencies and law enforcement, and may soon allow State prisons to use them. There's also the "managed access" solution, where the prison basically has it's own short range tower.
But that's not the important part. The important bit is that the range of a jammer isn't limited to one mile. They don't have to be that loud to work. You can get one that only works within 30, 300 feet, whatever. Government agencies can get waivers to use them, and this includes prisons. Someone commented here that there are prisons with a small jammer in every cell. Which I assume was done for reasons other than providing a basis for puns.
If anything, this is a positive story about booming investment in entrepreneurship.
I'll accept the criticism if it's the former, but not the latter.
And you make sure your jammer (if that's the option they choose) doesn't broadcast far enough to cut off grandma next door.
I know it's easy to forget now, but cell phones aren't the only way to communicate. Worst case, people next to prisons get landlines because they aren't getting cell service at home.
Or what about carefully arranged directional antennas to broadcast jamming noise? Put them around the prison, pointing inwards and broadcasting just loud enough so that their cumulative effect is to block signals in the prison, but not loud enough so that their individual broadcasts interfere with signals outside the prison. Sure, maybe you only get one bar next to the prison wall, but that's hardly a major issue.
"Good news CO, you don't have to worry about illicit cell phones anymore. You're welcome!"
My bet is that the FCC's rules on interference are why they can't jam, and nobody has bothered to ask for an exception. My second bet is that they could go to the cell providers directly and have them refuse connections from prison grounds. Either by triangulating the location of the phone or using the GPS data