So fines against people don't have a minimum but fines against companies do? What if your $1M minimum fine puts 10 people out of work because the company goes under? Either using a sliding scale or don't; let's not make up silly rules based on angst against "evil corporations".
CNAM data is not passed across the PSTN -- only the number is passed, and the destination telco must do a CNAM lookup. That's why out-of-area CNAM data is spoty at best. Hence your "spoofed" name is only visible inside the packet8 network.
Many mfgs. have agreements to set a minimum advertised price -- you can sell it for whatever you want, but until someone actually comes to your store and expresses interest you can't tell them your price. That's what things like the "Add to your cart to see the price" on Amazon.com are about. It's also common practice to advertise at the min. price and then package the item with "free accessories" to effectively reduce the price without violating the min. ad. price agreement.
If by "use session variables" you mean "put my session ID in a variable" that's a bad idea -- it's actually less secure than cookies. For one thing, you can leak the URL in a number of ways, including the referrer header, or even a copy and paste when you want to IM the URL to your friend.
If by "use session variables" you mean "put all of the persistent data in the care of the client and make them resubmit it each time" there are good reasons to avoid that too. For one thing, it suffers from the same problems as the last scenario -- your authentication data needs to be in every URL that might generate a GET request. For another, there are limitations on the amount of data that you can submit in a GET request. As a general rule you have to validate every piece of information you get from the client; if you don't ever send a piece of data to the client (say a temp file path name), you don't ever have to validate it. Finally the logic involved in constructing URLs becomes complicated, particular in applications where not every page needs the same bits of information -- you have to construct a general system for forwarding submitted parameters, even if you don't know what they are in the current context.
The publishers only don't want that conduct to occur because they think they can make more money if they prevent/disallow it. If it became clear that publishers could make more money with such conduct their objections would stop and the conduct would be encouraged.
No, nobody thinks the embargoes will work anymore. Most people didn't even think they would work 40 years ago. But stopping the embargoes would be an admission that we've been wrong for the last 40 years, and there's not a politician alive who would do that.
I'm pretty sure the plan for the last 20 years or so has been to wait for Castro to die and take whatever sort of political change happens -- even if it's just a new dictator -- as evidence that the embargo was successful and therefore no longer necessary. It's just the Castro won't die.
While I understand most of your concerns, somehow I don't think consolidating power to the federal government will improve any of the things you'd like to see fixed. What makes you think it would be easier to change the problems at a federal level, rather than at a state level? Even if you only fix it in one state, that's plenty of market for people interested in setting up wireless ISPs or pulling new cable.
It's also worth noting that, while many ISPs are chartered as telcos for various reasons (like the ability to install their own DSLAMs) and therefore subject to the regulation of state utility boards, simply becoming a wireless ISP does not require such regulation in places -- it's a matter between you, the FCC, and whatever body regulates radio towers in your area (usually the city).
Not if you want support for RAID cards released in the least 2 years, for example. Having worked FreeBSD with high-end hardware I can speak to the fact that it's a major hassle to balance the OS bugs with hardware support; new hardware gets support later in FreeBSD than linux, and that support is less likely to be backported than in linux.
Re:Biased, iPhone not ready for enterprise use
on
The Perfect Phone Storm?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I was speaking at Lawrence Livermore Labs, where phones brought on site can't have cameras. They also can't emit radio in the form of bluetooth, WiFi or even cellular.
So what you're really saying is that phones in generall can't be brought on-site -- I don't know of any mobile phone that will connect calls over a non-radio interface.
If Eta Car is in our frame of reference then the explosion happens more or less when we see it, by definition. If Eta Car is not in our frame of reference then the comparison is not so simple.
Both your battlefield parties are in more or less the same frame of reference as they are only separated by a few miles; their limitation in communication speed is artificial and *not* related to some fundamental physical limit like the local speed of light in a vacuum. That's not the case with light coming through space from a very distant object. The timescale is different because of the distance itself, not just our relative speed.
If their goal is prevent people from seeing the content, then PGP/GPG would be a great plan. But their goal is to limit what people who are authorized to see the content can do with it on their own equipment, and that goal is not attainable in any robust system, open or otherwise.
So yes, open vs. closed may have nothing to do with robustness. But logically sound vs. fallacious seems like a more important factor in selecting a robust design.
Apparently da4 discovered some new non-relative timescale that's consistent throughout the universe without respect to position or velocity. That seems much more noteworthy than this supernova thing.
LIke most Zonk articles, the title is misleading. The study specifically notes that you don't actually have to be the first-born, just the oldest-living.
Though saying the the family "does a sub-optimal job of...junior's learning" is a bit of an oversimplification -- like most organizations the family has responsibilities outside of the education of children, and a 2-3 point IQ difference may not be a bad trade for the other gains the family sees.
Or you could look at it from another point of view, saying something like the oldest child has to teach themselves more things, having no peers to learn from. This self-educational skill is unecessary for younger siblings and, while that skill may be advantagous, the siblines receive a direct benefit in peer-based education that the oldest sibbling did not.
Well that's a start, though "add to an existing contract" is less than ideal. Last time I bought a phone T-Mobile wasn't viable in my area; I now live in a more metro area, so it may be worth another look.
Typically you have to pay a lot more for the phone and have to buy it from them. I haven't found anyone willing to just sell me a SIM and provide my own equipment, even if my equipment is identical to what they're trying to sell me.
You don't need 3 kids to make it a hassle. Just 1 kids makes it really hard to carry more than a single bag of groceries on a bike, because you're carrying a kid in your only real cargo space. The same scenario applies to public transportation -- most people have only two arms, and there's not a lot of cargo space on a stroller.
And while I'm sure there are many, many people that live within 5 miles of a grocery store, I lived for the first 24 years of my life outside that range, and I'm not alone.
There are viable alternatives. In some cases, inkjet is the right choice, and I said as much in my post. In some cases, neither inkjet nor laser are the right choice. But saying that inkjet always wins on price is silly, because even in the common case that's not always true, and it's easy to construct cases where it's never true.
Like I said, some people know that they can use their ink cartridge well past when it complains. And some people know where to buy cheap refills. And some people know to buy multi-cartridge systems. But Joe Public buying the $50, 3-color, single-cartridge inkjet at Wal-Mart does not, and is likely to spend $10+/month on supplies.
If you know enough about printing to pick the right inkjet and supplies you can probably also decide when laser would be a better choice. I was simply trying to dispel the idea that laser is never the right choice for anyone, or that laser is necessarily more expensive for low-volume installations.
I said color printing was a reasonable cause to avoid laser printers. And printing on non-paper-like surfaces. Thanks for reading before flaming.
I don't know how it does on 100#+ paper, but I've run 80# cardstock through the thing and had no trouble fixing toner, so long as I select the proper mode.
Dell/Lexmark sells a network (and USB and parallel), duplexing, 1200 DPI, 20+ PPM, greyscale laser with a flat media path (at least for manual feed) and a think-media fixing mode for $239. It's even got a separate imaging drum so you can use cheap, refurb toner cartridges.
How many people spend $239 on printing over 5 years? At $40/6 months (whether you use it or not, that $50 printer will tell you that you need more ink in 6 months) the ink alone is $400. You might be able to beat that with refills, but only on some printers, and many people lack the knowledge to do so on any printer. And how many of those people would be glad to have (whether they know it or not) a printer that works with any PCL/PS driver and doesn't require any particular hardware interface or operating system?
There are reasons to buy an inkjet. Printing on things that aren't shaped like paper, for example. A need for color (particularly photo-like blended colors) on a regular basis is another. But price, either per-page or overall is not terribly compelling, even for light users.
Actually FORTRAN is supposed to be capitalized through FORTRAN 77 -- starting at Fortran 90 it was officially changed to title case with deliberate intent. It is not now nor has it ever been properly called "fortran". There have been many empassioned discussions on the topic of FORTRAN capitalization; the ANSI standards reflect what I described above, and I'm not aware of anyone arguing that "fortran" is accurate, only that "Fortran" should be "FORTRAN", even after FORTRAN 77. (Note: My spell checker actually objects to "fortran" and suggests both "FORTRAN" and "Fortran" as alternatives).
GIF should still be capitalized in all use. Frankly I've never seen it not capitalized except in places that have specific case conventions outside of normal language conventions, such as file name extensions and the like.
I don't know enough about the history of LISP/Lisp or BIT/bit to comment. I've never seen bit written as BIT, but I haven't read a lot of computer science papers from 1960 either.
Let's be perfectly clear - people buy high speed Internet connections so that they can pirate stuff.
Let's be perfectly clear, you're flamebait.
I'm sure some people switched to a high-speed connection primarily to increase their pirate-material transfer speeds. I'm equally sure that some people who switched to a high-speed connection for other reasons later increased their pirate-material use because of the greater available bandwidth.
But there are a lot of people who buy high-speed connections for things like: not waiting 3 minutes from when you open the browser to when the PPP connection is up, not needing a second phone line to work from home, not spending 75 minutes without phone or Internet access to download 50 MB of Windows updates, the ability to easily share a single connection between machines and/or appliances, or even, God forbid, legitimate use for higher transfer speeds.
I remember the MythBusters where they said they were going to do that comparison. What they actually studied is non-drunk driving vs. solving logic/math problems over the phone. In the "drunk" test they weren't actually drunk, as the BAC reading was under 0.08, and in the "cell-phone" test they weren't just having a conversation, they were solving logic problems.
MythBusters is sometimes entertaining, but it's rarely science. Please don't cite their "experiments" as evidence for anything other than the ratings you can get with a few explosions.
Slashdot Mirror
So fines against people don't have a minimum but fines against companies do? What if your $1M minimum fine puts 10 people out of work because the company goes under? Either using a sliding scale or don't; let's not make up silly rules based on angst against "evil corporations".
CNAM data is not passed across the PSTN -- only the number is passed, and the destination telco must do a CNAM lookup. That's why out-of-area CNAM data is spoty at best. Hence your "spoofed" name is only visible inside the packet8 network.
Many mfgs. have agreements to set a minimum advertised price -- you can sell it for whatever you want, but until someone actually comes to your store and expresses interest you can't tell them your price. That's what things like the "Add to your cart to see the price" on Amazon.com are about. It's also common practice to advertise at the min. price and then package the item with "free accessories" to effectively reduce the price without violating the min. ad. price agreement.
If by "use session variables" you mean "put my session ID in a variable" that's a bad idea -- it's actually less secure than cookies. For one thing, you can leak the URL in a number of ways, including the referrer header, or even a copy and paste when you want to IM the URL to your friend.
If by "use session variables" you mean "put all of the persistent data in the care of the client and make them resubmit it each time" there are good reasons to avoid that too. For one thing, it suffers from the same problems as the last scenario -- your authentication data needs to be in every URL that might generate a GET request. For another, there are limitations on the amount of data that you can submit in a GET request. As a general rule you have to validate every piece of information you get from the client; if you don't ever send a piece of data to the client (say a temp file path name), you don't ever have to validate it. Finally the logic involved in constructing URLs becomes complicated, particular in applications where not every page needs the same bits of information -- you have to construct a general system for forwarding submitted parameters, even if you don't know what they are in the current context.
The publishers only don't want that conduct to occur because they think they can make more money if they prevent/disallow it. If it became clear that publishers could make more money with such conduct their objections would stop and the conduct would be encouraged.
No, nobody thinks the embargoes will work anymore. Most people didn't even think they would work 40 years ago. But stopping the embargoes would be an admission that we've been wrong for the last 40 years, and there's not a politician alive who would do that.
I'm pretty sure the plan for the last 20 years or so has been to wait for Castro to die and take whatever sort of political change happens -- even if it's just a new dictator -- as evidence that the embargo was successful and therefore no longer necessary. It's just the Castro won't die.
While I understand most of your concerns, somehow I don't think consolidating power to the federal government will improve any of the things you'd like to see fixed. What makes you think it would be easier to change the problems at a federal level, rather than at a state level? Even if you only fix it in one state, that's plenty of market for people interested in setting up wireless ISPs or pulling new cable.
It's also worth noting that, while many ISPs are chartered as telcos for various reasons (like the ability to install their own DSLAMs) and therefore subject to the regulation of state utility boards, simply becoming a wireless ISP does not require such regulation in places -- it's a matter between you, the FCC, and whatever body regulates radio towers in your area (usually the city).
Not if you want support for RAID cards released in the least 2 years, for example. Having worked FreeBSD with high-end hardware I can speak to the fact that it's a major hassle to balance the OS bugs with hardware support; new hardware gets support later in FreeBSD than linux, and that support is less likely to be backported than in linux.
I was speaking at Lawrence Livermore Labs, where phones brought on site can't have cameras. They also can't emit radio in the form of bluetooth, WiFi or even cellular.
So what you're really saying is that phones in generall can't be brought on-site -- I don't know of any mobile phone that will connect calls over a non-radio interface.
If Eta Car is in our frame of reference then the explosion happens more or less when we see it, by definition. If Eta Car is not in our frame of reference then the comparison is not so simple.
Both your battlefield parties are in more or less the same frame of reference as they are only separated by a few miles; their limitation in communication speed is artificial and *not* related to some fundamental physical limit like the local speed of light in a vacuum. That's not the case with light coming through space from a very distant object. The timescale is different because of the distance itself, not just our relative speed.
If their goal is prevent people from seeing the content, then PGP/GPG would be a great plan. But their goal is to limit what people who are authorized to see the content can do with it on their own equipment, and that goal is not attainable in any robust system, open or otherwise.
So yes, open vs. closed may have nothing to do with robustness. But logically sound vs. fallacious seems like a more important factor in selecting a robust design.
My apologizes to d4a.
Apparently da4 discovered some new non-relative timescale that's consistent throughout the universe without respect to position or velocity. That seems much more noteworthy than this supernova thing.
LIke most Zonk articles, the title is misleading. The study specifically notes that you don't actually have to be the first-born, just the oldest-living.
Though saying the the family "does a sub-optimal job of...junior's learning" is a bit of an oversimplification -- like most organizations the family has responsibilities outside of the education of children, and a 2-3 point IQ difference may not be a bad trade for the other gains the family sees.
Or you could look at it from another point of view, saying something like the oldest child has to teach themselves more things, having no peers to learn from. This self-educational skill is unecessary for younger siblings and, while that skill may be advantagous, the siblines receive a direct benefit in peer-based education that the oldest sibbling did not.
Well that's a start, though "add to an existing contract" is less than ideal. Last time I bought a phone T-Mobile wasn't viable in my area; I now live in a more metro area, so it may be worth another look.
Typically you have to pay a lot more for the phone and have to buy it from them. I haven't found anyone willing to just sell me a SIM and provide my own equipment, even if my equipment is identical to what they're trying to sell me.
You don't need 3 kids to make it a hassle. Just 1 kids makes it really hard to carry more than a single bag of groceries on a bike, because you're carrying a kid in your only real cargo space. The same scenario applies to public transportation -- most people have only two arms, and there's not a lot of cargo space on a stroller.
And while I'm sure there are many, many people that live within 5 miles of a grocery store, I lived for the first 24 years of my life outside that range, and I'm not alone.
There are viable alternatives. In some cases, inkjet is the right choice, and I said as much in my post. In some cases, neither inkjet nor laser are the right choice. But saying that inkjet always wins on price is silly, because even in the common case that's not always true, and it's easy to construct cases where it's never true.
Like I said, some people know that they can use their ink cartridge well past when it complains. And some people know where to buy cheap refills. And some people know to buy multi-cartridge systems. But Joe Public buying the $50, 3-color, single-cartridge inkjet at Wal-Mart does not, and is likely to spend $10+/month on supplies.
If you know enough about printing to pick the right inkjet and supplies you can probably also decide when laser would be a better choice. I was simply trying to dispel the idea that laser is never the right choice for anyone, or that laser is necessarily more expensive for low-volume installations.
I said color printing was a reasonable cause to avoid laser printers. And printing on non-paper-like surfaces. Thanks for reading before flaming.
I don't know how it does on 100#+ paper, but I've run 80# cardstock through the thing and had no trouble fixing toner, so long as I select the proper mode.
First, "Flash Video" is commonly H.263, not some magically Adobe-only codec. You don't need flash to play the video.
Second, the article title talks about YouTube providing H.264 content, which is a format the iPhone and iPod are already known to play.
Dell/Lexmark sells a network (and USB and parallel), duplexing, 1200 DPI, 20+ PPM, greyscale laser with a flat media path (at least for manual feed) and a think-media fixing mode for $239. It's even got a separate imaging drum so you can use cheap, refurb toner cartridges.
How many people spend $239 on printing over 5 years? At $40/6 months (whether you use it or not, that $50 printer will tell you that you need more ink in 6 months) the ink alone is $400. You might be able to beat that with refills, but only on some printers, and many people lack the knowledge to do so on any printer. And how many of those people would be glad to have (whether they know it or not) a printer that works with any PCL/PS driver and doesn't require any particular hardware interface or operating system?
There are reasons to buy an inkjet. Printing on things that aren't shaped like paper, for example. A need for color (particularly photo-like blended colors) on a regular basis is another. But price, either per-page or overall is not terribly compelling, even for light users.
Actually FORTRAN is supposed to be capitalized through FORTRAN 77 -- starting at Fortran 90 it was officially changed to title case with deliberate intent. It is not now nor has it ever been properly called "fortran". There have been many empassioned discussions on the topic of FORTRAN capitalization; the ANSI standards reflect what I described above, and I'm not aware of anyone arguing that "fortran" is accurate, only that "Fortran" should be "FORTRAN", even after FORTRAN 77. (Note: My spell checker actually objects to "fortran" and suggests both "FORTRAN" and "Fortran" as alternatives).
GIF should still be capitalized in all use. Frankly I've never seen it not capitalized except in places that have specific case conventions outside of normal language conventions, such as file name extensions and the like.
I don't know enough about the history of LISP/Lisp or BIT/bit to comment. I've never seen bit written as BIT, but I haven't read a lot of computer science papers from 1960 either.
Let's be perfectly clear - people buy high speed Internet connections so that they can pirate stuff.
Let's be perfectly clear, you're flamebait.
I'm sure some people switched to a high-speed connection primarily to increase their pirate-material transfer speeds. I'm equally sure that some people who switched to a high-speed connection for other reasons later increased their pirate-material use because of the greater available bandwidth.
But there are a lot of people who buy high-speed connections for things like: not waiting 3 minutes from when you open the browser to when the PPP connection is up, not needing a second phone line to work from home, not spending 75 minutes without phone or Internet access to download 50 MB of Windows updates, the ability to easily share a single connection between machines and/or appliances, or even, God forbid, legitimate use for higher transfer speeds.
I remember the MythBusters where they said they were going to do that comparison. What they actually studied is non-drunk driving vs. solving logic/math problems over the phone. In the "drunk" test they weren't actually drunk, as the BAC reading was under 0.08, and in the "cell-phone" test they weren't just having a conversation, they were solving logic problems.
MythBusters is sometimes entertaining, but it's rarely science. Please don't cite their "experiments" as evidence for anything other than the ratings you can get with a few explosions.