What if you were 19 when you obtained the photo of the 14 year old, and then turn 20? I guess you have to keep track of your images and make sure you don't have them when you turn a certain age?
I work for the government. Apparently much of our equipment has contracts for support.
This particular item did not.
So I had a network printer where the network card failed. I also found out that it was a NIC that was on a faulty replacement list.
So, I called HP support and explained to the person my problem. "OK, we will need $59 by credit card to speak with technical support." He says.
"But the card is on the faulty NIC card list, I shouldn't need to give you anything."
Still refused. I asked to speak to a manager. Frustrated, I think he hung up on me.
So I called back. I explained the problem *again* from the beginning, what I had done to troubleshoot, and explained that the card was on a faulty recall list.
Still they refused without collecting a $59 fee. I explained that I did not need to give them a credit card because the NIC was on a faulty recall list. Still she refused. I hung up this time.
I called back a 3rd time! This time, I explained to the gatekeeper everything from the beginning. He seemed surprised that the first two people didn't know this card was on a recall list and sent me right over to the JetDirect tech support (without paying a $59 fee).
I spoke to the JetDirect support tech, calmly explained everything I had done to troubleshoot, and he immediately agreed that the NIC was faulty, and that it appeared to be on the recall list. He then put me on hold.
He came back and said, "well it does appear this model is on the list, but the serial number you gave me is apparently not in the range of serial numbers in the recall. So, unless you can show us a receipt showing that the card has been replaced in the last 2 years, we will need $499 for a new card."
I nearly choked. I thanked him for his support and that I would look around for a receipt of the swap (highly unlikely around this office).
I finally found a replacement for $78 shipped, got my office to acquire and pay for it, received it, put it in, and got the printer to work again.
Think about it... the text can be more compressible than binary data such as images (which may already be compressed), thus a faster transmission time. For dial-up, this is handled by the modem transparently.
The time it would take to do an additional DNS look-up (to google), make a connection, start a download... could actually *add* to the overhead making it slower. If you already have a connection open to the web server in the first place, there is no additional overhead.
And what I meant about Vista is that it is so laden with "are you sure?" messages, would they really notice another second or two of transmission time difference?
But more specifically, my sites are military and all the content must come from trusted military web servers (better if it's the same one for all the content).
... and it's downloading text, not binary. I don't even think the user would notice anything appreciably different, especially if they have Vista and already used to things being slow!
Maybe it is possible to get TOO modular. Several problems with that:
1. With many little files comes many little requests. If the web server is not properly set up, then the overhead these individual requests causes really slows the transmission of the page. Usually, it's faster to have everything in one big file than to have the same number of kilobytes in many smaller files.
2. From a development point of view, I use several JS bits that require this or that library. I don't know why or what functions it needs. And I really don't care; I have my own stuff I want to worry about. I don't want to go digging through someone else's code (that already works) to figure out what functions they don't need.
3. If I do custom work where file size is a major factor or if I only use one function from the library, I guess then I'll just modify as I see fit and host on my own site.
I think what Google is doing is great, but I can't really use it for my sites (they're all secure). So unless I want that little warning message to come up, I won't be using it.
You can do an awful lot of litigating for $5M! Many/Most larger companies might roll over for a mere $25,000 (nuisance law suit) - but not $5M. There would be a big fight, usually ending with the patent-holder left with an invalid patent.
So that isn't the usual strategy.
Usually you bully a bunch of little guys who are likely to fork over small sums of cash many times. And if anyone challenges you, you run away from the fight. Because having a scary invalid patent is better than having no patent at all.
Then, when you've built up your war chest well enough, THEN you go after the large companies -- if (and only if) you think your patent is really that strong; because if you lose, you're likely to lose ALL the royalties you might have earned from other law suits.
Depending on my relationship with the company, and the size of my employer, I have sworn off ever giving notice again.
Well why should I? They aren't required to give ME notice! And I've been burned the last three times by immediately being let go with no time to look for another job.
So, screw it. I'll start giving notice when they do.
Isn't it obvious? The point of having TrueCrypt is to "Secure your laptop from US Customs" (the whole point of this discussion). I interpret that to mean you have something you don't necessarily want them to find. (Maybe it's your pr0n collection?)
So if they see TrueCrypt and ask you to unlock it? Then you unlock either a different volume or a hidden volume within the one you have. And it is impossible to tell what files (if any) are in fact volumes at all (unless you put them in plain sight, "Encrypted-volume.fil"). It is also impossible for them to know whether a volume has a hidden volume.
So the point is to appear to be compliant by doing what the nice US Customs agent says, without exposing what you are hiding.
I think in that instance, the worst case is that you lose your laptop, and avoid going to jail. Best case is you go right through without trouble.
FUD. Ever known anyone personally who has been searched and ended up in something like GTMO because of possible illegal data? In the USA that is?
I didn't think so.
So you have TrueCrypt and they see it. So show them the shadow volume. What is the problem? If they just don't believe you, and they keep your laptop... and if you *really* really really really *really* had something to hide with TrueCrypt that would get you into trouble if they found it, then didn't it just save your hide?
OK, is it realistic to think they even capture 1% of the data on laptops that go across the border? Even still there's no way. It is a useless prospect.
So then, if you have something that needs to be protected, use TrueCrypt to encrypt it. Actually, here's what do:
1. Install TrueCrypt. Copy the setup.exe file somewhere you can get it later 2. Create a file with a regular volume and a shadow volume in it 3. Call the file something like MSDOS.SYS or DBLSPACE.BIN so it looks like a system file 4. Put your data in the regular volume 5. Throw some regular stuff in the shadow volume (maybe pictures of old gf's or something) 6. Uninstall TrueCrypt 7. Go through customs and let them examine it. 8. Reinstall TrueCrypt. 9. ??? 10. Profit! (sorry, oblig)
But I still say they won't do it unless they truly suspect you of something; not just to be looking for something.
Fine then. Keep a TrueCrypt setup.exe file in your apps folder somewhere. Uninstall TrueCrypt before you get to the airport.
Let them search it.
Reinstall TrueCrypt.
I don't really think having TrueCrypt installed would necessarily set off a red flag though. And if it does, they certainly won't get anything out of me. Besides, encryption is perfectly legal and easily justifiable. And when that isn't enough, show them your shadow volume. And many business and military laptops already have encryption installed anyway.
I don't see the problem. If you don't have anything worth hiding, then don't use TrueCrypt. It's your choice, simple as that. But it's there if you need it.
And if I *am* transporting something deemed illegal, I fail to see how they are going to figure out what it is (if they even recognize it's there).
Not every volume has to have a shadow volume, and you can't tell the difference between one that has one and one that doesn't. I have several encrypted files. Some have a shadow volume, some don't.
And just because I have TrueCrypt installed doesn't mean I even have an encrypted volume at all! It could be for reading that encrypted USB drive I didn't bring to the airport.
I suspect this is a bunch of FUD. I visited the Ukraine last November and when I came back I wasn't even asked to power on my laptop. And yet they might copy all your files off for examination later? Suuure. Rated "possible but unlikely."
Do you have ANY idea how much data storage would be required just to capture that? Not to mention the amount of time sifting through all that crap? And for what? It's too easy to cleverly disguise it or encrypt your data. I just don't buy it.
I think it's more likely that if you are suspected of smuggling something, THEN they might start looking at your junk on your computer, and only keep the data if they really suspect something. But otherwise, I don't believe they have the resources to store and analyze too much or too deeply on a cursory search level.
That is what TrueCrypt is for (but don't encrypt the entire drive). Just encrypt what needs encryptin'. Set up an encrypted volume with a shadow volume inside a regular file. Call it something that looks like a system file like MSDOS.SYS or DBLSPACE.BIN or something. (That would explain the unusually large size of the file.)
So first, they would have to know you even have something encrypted (which is just a guess if they see TrueCrypt installed). Then they'd have to know what/which files was/were encrypted (which can't be determined by examining the file). Then they'd have to ask you to mount the volume and provide the password (at which time you then provide the shadow volume password, which only contains innocuous files).
Yes I meant "deprecated." (sheesh.) (Aherently, I have a riding inpedermant remendering the wrong syllabus.)
Anyway, I had vaguely recalled having trouble setting either the the border color or the background cell color of a table.
Now as I look, I can't figure out what it was I had trouble with...(shrugs)
I guess my only gripe though is that, with CSS it always seems you get to something you want to change and cant find that one attribute(?) that fixes it for you. And for tables there are many configurables, and they aren't intuitively named.
Anyway, if the table, tr, and td tags are not deprecated, then I suppose I don't have much of a beef with CSS. Perhaps it was using tables for LAYOUT that most people have a gripe with.
IMHO, CSS is still not completely fully thought-out. There are still some attributes that cannot be set with CSS, and not every browser displays CSS the same way. I have backed myself in a corner several times trying to just use CSS only.
Tables may be predicated, but do you honestly think anything is going to refuse displaying them? Ever?
Further, the fastest way to build a page: 1. Design it in PS. 2. Slice it up 3. Export as HTML and images slices 4. Load in DW 5. Knock-out images where content should go. 6. Profit.
My pages always took forever to build and still looked like an amateur did them until someone showed me how to do this effectively. Knock it out and get it done, get on to the next project.
Does DW know how to get data from a database? As a matter of fact, it does! If you don't know what you're doing with databases, this is a great way to start out until you do.
Ah, I think that is because you don't know how to code PHP in a way that is renderable for DW.
If you code your page right, you should be able to display even multiple branches without screwing up the whole layout. It takes practice but can be done. My pages used to look unrenderable in DW until I figured out how. If you want more details, I'll elaborate.
I even have a view pages that just keep posting back to themselves and rendering what looks like a new document. In DW, it just looks like one long page with little tags throughout.
I am truly perplexed at the angst for DW. How do you find it confusing exactly? Maybe you have it misconfigured?
I have used DW for years and I love the way it seamlessly understands you are coding PHP, ASP, HTML, Javascript, or CSS. It suggests the syntax for most functions, and even has an extensive library of its own.
In fact, I can't even think of a faster way of creating a web-form tied to a database (which is the majority of what I do) than drawing your form up in DW (dragging your form elements where you want them and sizing the properly), then add PHP and Javascript as necessary. (If you use PHP and JS). (I do because I think it's polite to do client-side form validation, but also have server-side in case JS is disabled).
Then go back and attach your style sheet as needed. You do have a good template, don't you?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. Problem:
What if you were 19 when you obtained the photo of the 14 year old, and then turn 20? I guess you have to keep track of your images and make sure you don't have them when you turn a certain age?
Ha... that's funny. My complete pr0n collection already *is* encrypted!
Well, duh... CGI stand for Common Gateway Interface. :-)
OH, let me tell you.
I work for the government. Apparently much of our equipment has contracts for support.
This particular item did not.
So I had a network printer where the network card failed. I also found out that it was a NIC that was on a faulty replacement list.
So, I called HP support and explained to the person my problem. "OK, we will need $59 by credit card to speak with technical support." He says.
"But the card is on the faulty NIC card list, I shouldn't need to give you anything."
Still refused. I asked to speak to a manager. Frustrated, I think he hung up on me.
So I called back. I explained the problem *again* from the beginning, what I had done to troubleshoot, and explained that the card was on a faulty recall list.
Still they refused without collecting a $59 fee. I explained that I did not need to give them a credit card because the NIC was on a faulty recall list. Still she refused. I hung up this time.
I called back a 3rd time! This time, I explained to the gatekeeper everything from the beginning. He seemed surprised that the first two people didn't know this card was on a recall list and sent me right over to the JetDirect tech support (without paying a $59 fee).
I spoke to the JetDirect support tech, calmly explained everything I had done to troubleshoot, and he immediately agreed that the NIC was faulty, and that it appeared to be on the recall list. He then put me on hold.
He came back and said, "well it does appear this model is on the list, but the serial number you gave me is apparently not in the range of serial numbers in the recall. So, unless you can show us a receipt showing that the card has been replaced in the last 2 years, we will need $499 for a new card."
I nearly choked. I thanked him for his support and that I would look around for a receipt of the swap (highly unlikely around this office).
I finally found a replacement for $78 shipped, got my office to acquire and pay for it, received it, put it in, and got the printer to work again.
But I dare say HP helped me even one little bit.
Flamebait?!? No I was being serious!
Think about it... the text can be more compressible than binary data such as images (which may already be compressed), thus a faster transmission time. For dial-up, this is handled by the modem transparently.
The time it would take to do an additional DNS look-up (to google), make a connection, start a download... could actually *add* to the overhead making it slower. If you already have a connection open to the web server in the first place, there is no additional overhead.
And what I meant about Vista is that it is so laden with "are you sure?" messages, would they really notice another second or two of transmission time difference?
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head.
But more specifically, my sites are military and all the content must come from trusted military web servers (better if it's the same one for all the content).
... and it's downloading text, not binary. I don't even think the user would notice anything appreciably different, especially if they have Vista and already used to things being slow!
Yikes...
Maybe it is possible to get TOO modular. Several problems with that:
1. With many little files comes many little requests. If the web server is not properly set up, then the overhead these individual requests causes really slows the transmission of the page. Usually, it's faster to have everything in one big file than to have the same number of kilobytes in many smaller files.
2. From a development point of view, I use several JS bits that require this or that library. I don't know why or what functions it needs. And I really don't care; I have my own stuff I want to worry about. I don't want to go digging through someone else's code (that already works) to figure out what functions they don't need.
3. If I do custom work where file size is a major factor or if I only use one function from the library, I guess then I'll just modify as I see fit and host on my own site.
I think what Google is doing is great, but I can't really use it for my sites (they're all secure). So unless I want that little warning message to come up, I won't be using it.
Hold on there Spanky!
You can do an awful lot of litigating for $5M! Many/Most larger companies might roll over for a mere $25,000 (nuisance law suit) - but not $5M. There would be a big fight, usually ending with the patent-holder left with an invalid patent.
So that isn't the usual strategy.
Usually you bully a bunch of little guys who are likely to fork over small sums of cash many times. And if anyone challenges you, you run away from the fight. Because having a scary invalid patent is better than having no patent at all.
Then, when you've built up your war chest well enough, THEN you go after the large companies -- if (and only if) you think your patent is really that strong; because if you lose, you're likely to lose ALL the royalties you might have earned from other law suits.
RIM was different. They actually had something.
I'll happily pay twice and give my $.02: Fuck off!
(Only meant in harmless, friendly fun.)
Depending on my relationship with the company, and the size of my employer, I have sworn off ever giving notice again.
Well why should I? They aren't required to give ME notice! And I've been burned the last three times by immediately being let go with no time to look for another job.
So, screw it. I'll start giving notice when they do.
Not to mention the size of that pooper-scooper you'd have to take on a walk! Whooohooooo!!!
"Hey, careful out there in the back yard... you might step in a... oh... I'm sorry. The hose is over there."
Isn't it obvious? The point of having TrueCrypt is to "Secure your laptop from US Customs" (the whole point of this discussion). I interpret that to mean you have something you don't necessarily want them to find. (Maybe it's your pr0n collection?)
So if they see TrueCrypt and ask you to unlock it? Then you unlock either a different volume or a hidden volume within the one you have. And it is impossible to tell what files (if any) are in fact volumes at all (unless you put them in plain sight, "Encrypted-volume.fil"). It is also impossible for them to know whether a volume has a hidden volume.
So the point is to appear to be compliant by doing what the nice US Customs agent says, without exposing what you are hiding.
I think in that instance, the worst case is that you lose your laptop, and avoid going to jail. Best case is you go right through without trouble.
FUD. Ever known anyone personally who has been searched and ended up in something like GTMO because of possible illegal data? In the USA that is?
I didn't think so.
So you have TrueCrypt and they see it. So show them the shadow volume. What is the problem? If they just don't believe you, and they keep your laptop... and if you *really* really really really *really* had something to hide with TrueCrypt that would get you into trouble if they found it, then didn't it just save your hide?
OK, is it realistic to think they even capture 1% of the data on laptops that go across the border? Even still there's no way. It is a useless prospect.
So then, if you have something that needs to be protected, use TrueCrypt to encrypt it. Actually, here's what do:
1. Install TrueCrypt. Copy the setup.exe file somewhere you can get it later
2. Create a file with a regular volume and a shadow volume in it
3. Call the file something like MSDOS.SYS or DBLSPACE.BIN so it looks like a system file
4. Put your data in the regular volume
5. Throw some regular stuff in the shadow volume (maybe pictures of old gf's or something)
6. Uninstall TrueCrypt
7. Go through customs and let them examine it.
8. Reinstall TrueCrypt.
9. ???
10. Profit! (sorry, oblig)
But I still say they won't do it unless they truly suspect you of something; not just to be looking for something.
Fine then. Keep a TrueCrypt setup.exe file in your apps folder somewhere. Uninstall TrueCrypt before you get to the airport.
Let them search it.
Reinstall TrueCrypt.
I don't really think having TrueCrypt installed would necessarily set off a red flag though. And if it does, they certainly won't get anything out of me. Besides, encryption is perfectly legal and easily justifiable. And when that isn't enough, show them your shadow volume. And many business and military laptops already have encryption installed anyway.
I don't see the problem. If you don't have anything worth hiding, then don't use TrueCrypt. It's your choice, simple as that. But it's there if you need it.
And if I *am* transporting something deemed illegal, I fail to see how they are going to figure out what it is (if they even recognize it's there).
It's called "plausible deniability."
Not every volume has to have a shadow volume, and you can't tell the difference between one that has one and one that doesn't. I have several encrypted files. Some have a shadow volume, some don't.
And just because I have TrueCrypt installed doesn't mean I even have an encrypted volume at all! It could be for reading that encrypted USB drive I didn't bring to the airport.
...and if you travel alone?
I suspect this is a bunch of FUD. I visited the Ukraine last November and when I came back I wasn't even asked to power on my laptop. And yet they might copy all your files off for examination later? Suuure. Rated "possible but unlikely."
Do you have ANY idea how much data storage would be required just to capture that? Not to mention the amount of time sifting through all that crap? And for what? It's too easy to cleverly disguise it or encrypt your data. I just don't buy it.
I think it's more likely that if you are suspected of smuggling something, THEN they might start looking at your junk on your computer, and only keep the data if they really suspect something. But otherwise, I don't believe they have the resources to store and analyze too much or too deeply on a cursory search level.
That is what TrueCrypt is for (but don't encrypt the entire drive). Just encrypt what needs encryptin'. Set up an encrypted volume with a shadow volume inside a regular file. Call it something that looks like a system file like MSDOS.SYS or DBLSPACE.BIN or something. (That would explain the unusually large size of the file.)
So first, they would have to know you even have something encrypted (which is just a guess if they see TrueCrypt installed). Then they'd have to know what/which files was/were encrypted (which can't be determined by examining the file). Then they'd have to ask you to mount the volume and provide the password (at which time you then provide the shadow volume password, which only contains innocuous files).
I can't be the only dummy to figure that out.
I really don't mind watching the ads! Once. But I am not going to watch the same damn commercial over and over. I've seen it already.
Well even that isn't true. There are a few commercials I wouldn't mind seeing more than once, if they're funny, shocking or interesting enough.
Yes I meant "deprecated." (sheesh.) (Aherently, I have a riding inpedermant remendering the wrong syllabus.)
Anyway, I had vaguely recalled having trouble setting either the the border color or the background cell color of a table.
Now as I look, I can't figure out what it was I had trouble with...(shrugs)
I guess my only gripe though is that, with CSS it always seems you get to something you want to change and cant find that one attribute(?) that fixes it for you. And for tables there are many configurables, and they aren't intuitively named.
Anyway, if the table, tr, and td tags are not deprecated, then I suppose I don't have much of a beef with CSS. Perhaps it was using tables for LAYOUT that most people have a gripe with.
bah. Just get off my lawn.
IMHO, CSS is still not completely fully thought-out. There are still some attributes that cannot be set with CSS, and not every browser displays CSS the same way. I have backed myself in a corner several times trying to just use CSS only.
Tables may be predicated, but do you honestly think anything is going to refuse displaying them? Ever?
Further, the fastest way to build a page:
1. Design it in PS.
2. Slice it up
3. Export as HTML and images slices
4. Load in DW
5. Knock-out images where content should go.
6. Profit.
My pages always took forever to build and still looked like an amateur did them until someone showed me how to do this effectively. Knock it out and get it done, get on to the next project.
Does DW know how to get data from a database? As a matter of fact, it does! If you don't know what you're doing with databases, this is a great way to start out until you do.
Yes, it can do includes also.
Ah, I think that is because you don't know how to code PHP in a way that is renderable for DW.
If you code your page right, you should be able to display even multiple branches without screwing up the whole layout. It takes practice but can be done. My pages used to look unrenderable in DW until I figured out how. If you want more details, I'll elaborate.
I even have a view pages that just keep posting back to themselves and rendering what looks like a new document. In DW, it just looks like one long page with little tags throughout.
I am truly perplexed at the angst for DW. How do you find it confusing exactly? Maybe you have it misconfigured?
I have used DW for years and I love the way it seamlessly understands you are coding PHP, ASP, HTML, Javascript, or CSS. It suggests the syntax for most functions, and even has an extensive library of its own.
In fact, I can't even think of a faster way of creating a web-form tied to a database (which is the majority of what I do) than drawing your form up in DW (dragging your form elements where you want them and sizing the properly), then add PHP and Javascript as necessary. (If you use PHP and JS). (I do because I think it's polite to do client-side form validation, but also have server-side in case JS is disabled).
Then go back and attach your style sheet as needed. You do have a good template, don't you?