I joined gmail way early into the beta, so I got an email address that was simply my last name with first initial. Nothing else. Very simple, which I thought was great rather than adding a bunch of crappy letters/numbers to it.
Problem is, I end up getting subscribed to mailing lists all the time because a lot of people with the same last name and a similar first name don't pay the fuck attention to what address they're typing in.
The worst ones are the politician mailing lists. It's very rare that their unsubscribe feature even works at all, and when it doesn't, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Sure I add their address and name to my filters, but those fuckwads share your email address with each other. For example, I first got subscribed to Jim Dabakis, and he's since passed it to a bunch of other politicians in his fucking party so that they can send me messages from their stupid campaigns that are in another fucking state that I don't even care about. So periodically I get political emails from Democrats in Utah, and there's nothing I can do about it. Now I have no fucking idea how many lists I'd have to unsubscribe from, assuming that is even possible.
Oh and they keep asking me for campaign contributions, which is SPAM by definition because it's very much an unsolicited advertisement, except every law that makes spam illegal conveniently excludes the very politicians who wrote those laws.
So what can I do about it? Jack shit.
Though there are a few times where I've done some things that aren't very nice with this. For example, somebody bought a Hyundai in Vancouver Canada (a place I don't live anywhere even remotely close to) and then gave them my email address. The dealership sent me one of those surveys that makes or breaks the salesman and counts towards the dealership itself with Hyundai, so I gave it the most negative review I possibly could. Somebody from there sent me an email asking if I was sure I wanted to submit a review like that, and that it would have to be submitted anyways if I didn't respond, but they'd like to "speak with me" about it first, so I just ignored them. Serves them fucking right for not verifying who owns the address.
Another time some girl I don't even know sent me her nudies, but I just ignored the email.
Try startpage.com. It uses results from Google, but isn't Google. As far as I can determine, they don't log anything you do.
It also happens to be the default search engine of the Tor browser, which should say something as it goes way out of the way to make sure your activity is completely anonymous.
So I'd say the FBI is going to be restricted to Amish who were too wasted during their rumspringa to download anything.
With any luck, the FBI becomes so incompetent over time due to a complete lack of human resources that they lose the ability to perform their role as a proper enforcement arm of the very group they are sworn to protect (Hollywood) so that these stupid laws eventually go away.
Come to think of it, luck won't have much to do with it; it'll just happen. Mr. Incompetent himself (Eric Holder) is already doing a pretty good job at making all of the federal law enforcement agencies look stupid.
In most cases it isn't that they can't handle it, but that they aren't configured to. (And by the way, this problem ONLY applies to NAT, which the article doesn't make clear, and when the world moves to ipv6 this entire project will be moot.) Linksys routers are a classic example of this, as they are configured by default to only hold (if memory serves) 512 some odd connections at once in the NAT table.
The easy fix is to just increase that limit (4096 I believe was the max for WRT54g, and should work fine) and reduce the timeout period for inactive connections so that old ones are freed up faster (I think it defaults to like 10 minutes and you can safely reduce it to 5 minutes without negatively impacting anything.)
I'm a very heavy torrent user on my home network, and I don't have any problem at all (playing games or whatever) while e.g. downloading two movies at once (couchpotato and sickrage ftw.)
Umm, pretty much every diabetes study out there suggest otherwise - take your pick and do a search for "The rats/mice were fed sugar until they developed diabetes."
As you can see, the answer to the question in my search varies from either a resounding no (diabetes.org outright says its a myth) to being exactly in-line with my own previous commentary.
Are you saying here that 1) You don't punch both ends with the proper wiring (straight through) (you also seem to think it doesn't matter)
Neither of these are important in that kind of setting. If you believe otherwise, I'd never advocate anybody hire you because you seem to believe in added complexity where it isn't needed. Another term for this is over-engineering, and it's nothing more than wasteful.
2) that you are seriously suggesting wiring wallports to RJ-45 ends as opposed to a proper patch panel?
For a typical low budget/SOHO type setting, a patch panel isn't necessary. It just adds to the complexity and cost without adding any real value. Instead I prefer to use a label maker and tag the cables. Cheap and effective.
Boy no wonder you only charge $30 an hour! One gets what one pays for indeed!
Everything you ask for above is tantamount to insisting that anything less than a gold plated toilet paper dispenser is unacceptable for carrying the material that you wipe your ass with.
You also fail hard at basic economics. Here's why:
Most people who would want their whole house wired are in the situation where they aren't willing to pay much more than if they had just gone with any of wifi, moca, or powerline adapters. If going with a wired solution costs too much more than those, then they'd simply go with the alternative. It's a classic example of substitution. You can't just price yourself out of their budget and expect that they'll eventually be willing pay you anyways.
Having said that, "intelligent" isn't a word anybody has ever used to describe you, is it?
You can already pig out on ice cream if you don't already have diabetes. Contrary to popular mother's tales, eating a lot of sugar has never *caused* diabetes.
Being overweight doesn't cause it either, rather IF your body already has a certain amount of resistance to insulin, being overweight can exacerbate it. Inflammation and pregnancy can also do the same thing. (The later is called gestational diabetes.)
Which by the way, all of this "ramping down" was already something Bush had planned and was even done under his original timeline, so I'm not letting him off here, but Obama could have stopped it. Still, I'm not sure why you credit Obama for it in the first place.
He's proactively involved special forces in trouble spots before full scale deployments become necessary.
This is something every recent president has done. (And in many cases it gets us into trouble.) Do you have blind worship for this guy or something? I mean this statement alone suggests your nose is presently getting browner as we speak.
But, the machine that Obama represents, corrupt, inconsistent, and self-serving as it is, seems to be an improvement over the machine that Bush represented.
How the hell would that be, exactly? He appoints people to his cabinet who believe they can do whatever the fuck they want. I mean shit, his DOJ thinks it can throw whatever charges it wants even against people that have been found not guilty by a jury of their peers. If anything it's worse, yet somehow you believe it's an improvement?
No it doesn't introduce latency (at least, not any appreciable amount, even for really sensitive applications) rather it's just too unreliable and such a waste of a gigabit broadband connection (remember AC requires channel bonding to get gigabit, and you aren't going to channel bond too well with multiple devices trying to fight for spectrum.) See my reply here:
I'm going to give a qualified 'no' to this one. I'm a network engineer, this IS my business. The reality is that powerline and wifi both suck balls if you really are *that* excited to have gigabit and you want your whole house to take advantage of it. I've actually heard from hardware engineers that design embedded devices who say that they can't get wifi to work reliably past about 10 meters, and I very much believe them.
Between neighbors doing stupid things (e.g. having the bright idea of making their AP sit on channel 2 when everybody else is on channel 1, not realizing that doing this effectively has them jam your AP and you jam theirs in all areas that they overlap) and the overall noisiness of unlicensed bands in general, wifi sucks for a lot of things. I personally refuse to use it for anything except smartphones and tablets.
Powerline adapters are lame most of the time as well because they work under the assumption that your internal wiring isn't very noisy, which is a very bad assumption to make because the controls for limiting radio interference from certain devices to the power grid aren't very good in many cases, and since you're typically on the same grid as your neighbors, there's fuck all you can do about it. I was lazy when I moved once and I tried a powerline adapter...boy was that a stupid idea. Not only are those things overpriced, but even the best ones don't work for shit in my house. It was rated for 200mbit, and I think in my case it got 2mbit. Worthless.
That said, just wiring ethernet is the best thing you can do. And there's two ways you can do it:
1) Yourself 2) Hire somebody.
There are probably plenty of people you can hire to do it. I personally would wire a five bedroom house for the $150 range plus the cost of materials (usually not much more than $50 for the cabling, ends, jacks, and faceplates, in addition to any switches needed, which my favorite is the Trendnet TEG-S80G, which runs about $30-$40 and is a VERY good 8-port gigabit switch for the price, even has a lot of features and runs so energy efficient that its METAL housing is cool to the touch.) The reason my materials costs are cheaper is because I already have all of the materials, so I only use what I need rather than having to buy in larger quantities than YOU need. Again, somebody you hire is probably in the same boat.
I also do it with all internal wiring so there's no need to run conduit and/or get outdoor grade wiring, and cosmetically it just looks better. Some people balk about going through attics though and will only do external wiring. If the person you're going to hire either doesn't want to do that or demands extra for it, find somebody else (Which by the way, I'm overweight AND work in Arizona's typically 120F attics.) Anyways about an hour per room would earn me about $30 an hour. I think other people would be willing to do it for even less than that though.
If you're doing it yourself, you can probably do the job equally well as I can, but you'll need to go down to home depot or lowes and get the cheapest RJ45 crimper you can find (about $20) maybe a 300 foot spool of cat5e wire (as cheap as $20) a box of RJ45 terminators (about $20) modular jacks (about $5 each) and modular faceplates (about $1 each.)
Go spend about an hour on youtube to see how to crimp RJ45 ends (it's actually easier than it sounds) and stick with the 568-b standard for all ends. Don't worry about crossover, straight through, etc. Every time I hear people try to be "smart" and talk about doing it "right" I kind of chuckle, and here's why: Part of the gigabit ethernet standard (that is, to receive IEEE 802.3 certification for gigabit) the switches AND the ethernet ports MUST provide the auto-MDIX feature, so fretting about crossover is pointless.
As for the jacks, they're really easy to wire, just follow the little instruction manual, they even include the little plastic punch tool in the box (at least, I haven't seen any brand that doesn't include it.)
I'm sorry, I do not trust the benevolence of corporations.
You can equally say "I do not trust the benevolence of strangers" for all of the same reasons you just listed. The only difference with a corporation is that it is much easier to build capital with large pooled resources, something that is rarely achievable as an individual.
That $35 Indian smartphone for instance.
That's not a very good example. I think it's more likely that the design teams encountered problems along the way and as they were running out of time and budget on their design project, they just had to release what they had. This is a common problem in project management, even in free (as in beer) projects like open source software where there's no profit motive at all.
Start there. Read the whole thing, don't just cherry pick looking for proof of your statement.
Since the first half of that page is about the history of Famine (which most of it is history at this point in time) the only relevant bits are anything *after* the green revolution, as per what I stated, so I'll "skip" to this point, thank you:
Even so, I don't see any causes listed there that aren't political. Since you're so keen on using wikipedia to make your case, then I'll point you to this line:
Food shortages in a population are caused either by a lack of food or by difficulties in food distribution; it may be worsened by natural climate fluctuations and by extreme political conditions related to oppressive government or warfare.
Now if you read on further, the "lack of food" mentioned is mainly this:
Food shortages in a population are caused either by a lack of food or by difficulties in food distribution; it may be worsened by natural climate fluctuations and by extreme political conditions related to oppressive government or warfare. The conventional explanation until 1981 for the cause of famines was the Food availability decline (FAD) hypothesis. The assumption was that the central cause of all famines was a decline in food availability.[132] However, FAD could not explain why only a certain section of the population such as the agricultural laborer was affected by famines while others were insulated from famines.[133] Based on the studies of some recent famines, the decisive role of FAD has been questioned and it has been suggested that the causal mechanism for precipitating starvation includes many variables other than just decline of food availability. According to this view, famines are a result of entitlements, the theory being proposed is called the "failure of exchange entitlements" or FEE.[133] A person may own various commodities that can be exchanged in a market economy for the other commodities he or she needs. The exchange can happen via trading or production or through a combination of the two. These entitlements are called trade-based or production-based entitlements. Per this proposed view, famines are precipitated due to a breakdown in the ability of the person to exchange his entitlements.[133] An example of famines due to FEE is the inability of an agricultural laborer to exchange his primary entitlement, i.e., labor for rice when his employment became erratic or was completely eliminated.[133]
According to the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), global climate change is additionally challenging the Earth's ability to produce food, potentially leading to famine.[134]
Some elements make a particular region more vulnerable to famine. These include poverty, population growth,[135] an inappropriate social infrastructure, a suppressive political regime, and a weak or under-prepared government.[136]
You're so wrong here that I can say with 100% certainty that you really have zero understanding of any of them (besides, you even misspelled one of them.)
Look at how Six Sigma works for example. Six Sigma is focused entirely on reducing defect rate. A defect is *anything* that causes the customer to not be satisfied. They'll continue to iterate on the design over and over again until the defect rate gets to a ridiculously low number (3.4 defective parts per million.) That means that if the product is consistently bad, then they'll change its design until its right.
Lean Principles means we iterate on the design of the production process until we get it right.
What part about changing the design says "consistent" to you? It's anything but consistent if it is going through changes. Again I'll state, you have NO understanding of any of these concepts.
On the other hand, implementation of technology has become a corporate thing. And as corporations have shown us, they're working in their interests, not ours.
Corporations work with the same interests that anybody else does. That is to say, they can be anything from assholes to being very benevolent.
Even when they are working for their own interests, that isn't a bad thing. When Nokia invented the smartphone, they weren't intending on giving it away for free, rather they wanted to make themselves rich. But that benefited everybody else as well in the process; it eventually lead to technology being so cheap and available that anybody can have it, even the most poor people in the world.
Remember that in any willing transaction, both parties are getting something more valuable to them than what they are giving up. That means these "evil" corporations are giving you something that you value enough that you're willing to give up something else to obtain it.
Or to put it another way, I'm not sure why I should believe anybody who tells me that its evil for a corporation to give you something that you think is so nice that you're ready and willing to pay them for it.
It's wishful thinking. Technology should have produced a world without want, sickness or fear, where no one need labor for their own survival. Instead all that ingenuity went into devising new ways to oppress and kill our fellow man.
Actually you're exactly what he's talking about. Technology has gone a massive way towards reducing famine and sickness. I mean think about it:
- Some people actually argue that human natural selection has ended because medical technology is so good now that people rarely ever die from natural causes unless they're either very old or neglect their own health (e.g. drug abuse.) Contrast to 150 years ago where virtually any sort of serious injury often included death or dismemberment. People nowadays can be born with serious inherited diseases (e.g. cystic fibrosis) and even have kids where in the past that would have been impossible.
- The green revolution (that is, agricultural technology) has turned famine into a distant memory. The root cause of any starvation these days is almost always a 100% political one (e.g. some local warlord or government is deliberately limiting the food supply.)
In spite of the above, you prefer to subscribe to the Hollywood model where technology is only ever used for bad things. As far want and fear, no amount of technology will ever eliminate as those are just part of human nature. I'd actually be more concerned if we did get rid of those, as the only means of doing so would involve altering the person's mind (mind control is another way of putting it; think like the movie Equilibrium.)
It is interesting how lots of people want something, they want it built to last but all people sell is cheap garbage. This is the geek version of the Mom's who can't find clothes for their kids at Target. Lots of people want it, but manufacturers don't make what we want. Can anyone explain why? Isn't there a market for high quality things?
Actually TFS makes a huge mistake in assuming that manufacturers no longer target quality. This just isn't true, there's even an entire industry and field of study that is very much alive and thriving today, just end users are never aware of it, which is actually by design. ISO9000, 9001, Six Sigma, Lean Principles, etc, are huge focuses of manufacturers everywhere.
So, I guess, scientists will be those who say when it ends, if we let them figure it out,
I should have used the word "determine" when it ends. Scientists will not do that. It will just happen when it happens.
and right now most scientists are saying that too much CO2 is a bad thing
I don't study the climate, but I'm still at a loss for why this would be the case. Assuming that warming would be catastrophic (something I myself doubt, mainly based on comments by Patrick Moore) that would work on the assumption that CO2 rise causes a higher climate. Experimental data suggests that it does, but historical data does not, rather the historical data seems to indicate that a rise in global CO2 follows global warming.
the research findings show that it is most definitely human output which is responsible for the vast majority of climate change
Not exactly. Experimental data suggests that CO2 should cause global warming, but historical data suggests that rises in atmospheric CO2 follow global warming. What TFS notes is that we're seeing a rise in CO2, but no corresponding rise in temperature. That doesn't make a very strong case for human output being responsible for much.
It's easy to ignore science
I didn't.
it just shows you have a disdain for knowledge and the scientific method
If anything it shows that you have a disdain for the scientific method because the data found here doesn't support the argument you made a few sentences earlier.
Not that I'm bothered by NASA, but I hate when the science is turned political instead of being....you know...science. And James Hansen tends to do that.
That was my first instinct, but it's also possible that humanity just doesn't have THAT much of an impact. Remember that we're actually living in an unusually stable period of Earth's climate history to begin with, and as recent as the Cretaceous period we had atmospheric CO2 some 20 times what it is now (which BTW happened to be the most "green" period of Earth's history in addition to supporting the largest land animals to ever live.)
Who is to say when this period we're so familiar with ends, our fault or not?
That or unless there's some kind of internet connected medical equipment that has the ability to kill you, how the fuck is this supposed to happen? I think it would be equally feasible to induce a nuclear reactor into meltdown in the same vein as how Stuxnet destroyed all of that equipment while giving false readings on the indicators.
That is to say, not fucking likely.
If somebody had the kind of resources to pull such a thing off, I think their victim is already in a vulnerable enough state that they could hire a hitman anonymously for a few bitcoins.
Slashdot Mirror
you can VOTE. one man can make a difference!
If I lived in Utah, I'd sure as shit vote for whoever the fuck that is running for that office that isn't Jim Dabakis, but I can't.
A sha256sum of the entire firmware image should suffice for verification.
I joined gmail way early into the beta, so I got an email address that was simply my last name with first initial. Nothing else. Very simple, which I thought was great rather than adding a bunch of crappy letters/numbers to it.
Problem is, I end up getting subscribed to mailing lists all the time because a lot of people with the same last name and a similar first name don't pay the fuck attention to what address they're typing in.
The worst ones are the politician mailing lists. It's very rare that their unsubscribe feature even works at all, and when it doesn't, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Sure I add their address and name to my filters, but those fuckwads share your email address with each other. For example, I first got subscribed to Jim Dabakis, and he's since passed it to a bunch of other politicians in his fucking party so that they can send me messages from their stupid campaigns that are in another fucking state that I don't even care about. So periodically I get political emails from Democrats in Utah, and there's nothing I can do about it. Now I have no fucking idea how many lists I'd have to unsubscribe from, assuming that is even possible.
Oh and they keep asking me for campaign contributions, which is SPAM by definition because it's very much an unsolicited advertisement, except every law that makes spam illegal conveniently excludes the very politicians who wrote those laws.
So what can I do about it? Jack shit.
Though there are a few times where I've done some things that aren't very nice with this. For example, somebody bought a Hyundai in Vancouver Canada (a place I don't live anywhere even remotely close to) and then gave them my email address. The dealership sent me one of those surveys that makes or breaks the salesman and counts towards the dealership itself with Hyundai, so I gave it the most negative review I possibly could. Somebody from there sent me an email asking if I was sure I wanted to submit a review like that, and that it would have to be submitted anyways if I didn't respond, but they'd like to "speak with me" about it first, so I just ignored them. Serves them fucking right for not verifying who owns the address.
Another time some girl I don't even know sent me her nudies, but I just ignored the email.
Try startpage.com. It uses results from Google, but isn't Google. As far as I can determine, they don't log anything you do.
It also happens to be the default search engine of the Tor browser, which should say something as it goes way out of the way to make sure your activity is completely anonymous.
Emmanuel Goldstein doesn't exist dude. There's no need for the daily Two Minutes Hate.
So I'd say the FBI is going to be restricted to Amish who were too wasted during their rumspringa to download anything.
With any luck, the FBI becomes so incompetent over time due to a complete lack of human resources that they lose the ability to perform their role as a proper enforcement arm of the very group they are sworn to protect (Hollywood) so that these stupid laws eventually go away.
Come to think of it, luck won't have much to do with it; it'll just happen. Mr. Incompetent himself (Eric Holder) is already doing a pretty good job at making all of the federal law enforcement agencies look stupid.
In most cases it isn't that they can't handle it, but that they aren't configured to. (And by the way, this problem ONLY applies to NAT, which the article doesn't make clear, and when the world moves to ipv6 this entire project will be moot.) Linksys routers are a classic example of this, as they are configured by default to only hold (if memory serves) 512 some odd connections at once in the NAT table.
The easy fix is to just increase that limit (4096 I believe was the max for WRT54g, and should work fine) and reduce the timeout period for inactive connections so that old ones are freed up faster (I think it defaults to like 10 minutes and you can safely reduce it to 5 minutes without negatively impacting anything.)
I'm a very heavy torrent user on my home network, and I don't have any problem at all (playing games or whatever) while e.g. downloading two movies at once (couchpotato and sickrage ftw.)
Umm, pretty much every diabetes study out there suggest otherwise - take your pick and do a search for "The rats/mice were fed sugar until they developed diabetes."
I just did something a lot more to the point:
https://www.google.com/#safe=o...
As you can see, the answer to the question in my search varies from either a resounding no (diabetes.org outright says its a myth) to being exactly in-line with my own previous commentary.
Are you saying here that 1) You don't punch both ends with the proper wiring (straight through) (you also seem to think it doesn't matter)
Neither of these are important in that kind of setting. If you believe otherwise, I'd never advocate anybody hire you because you seem to believe in added complexity where it isn't needed. Another term for this is over-engineering, and it's nothing more than wasteful.
2) that you are seriously suggesting wiring wallports to RJ-45 ends as opposed to a proper patch panel?
For a typical low budget/SOHO type setting, a patch panel isn't necessary. It just adds to the complexity and cost without adding any real value. Instead I prefer to use a label maker and tag the cables. Cheap and effective.
Boy no wonder you only charge $30 an hour! One gets what one pays for indeed!
Everything you ask for above is tantamount to insisting that anything less than a gold plated toilet paper dispenser is unacceptable for carrying the material that you wipe your ass with.
You also fail hard at basic economics. Here's why:
Most people who would want their whole house wired are in the situation where they aren't willing to pay much more than if they had just gone with any of wifi, moca, or powerline adapters. If going with a wired solution costs too much more than those, then they'd simply go with the alternative. It's a classic example of substitution. You can't just price yourself out of their budget and expect that they'll eventually be willing pay you anyways.
Having said that, "intelligent" isn't a word anybody has ever used to describe you, is it?
You can already pig out on ice cream if you don't already have diabetes. Contrary to popular mother's tales, eating a lot of sugar has never *caused* diabetes.
Being overweight doesn't cause it either, rather IF your body already has a certain amount of resistance to insulin, being overweight can exacerbate it. Inflammation and pregnancy can also do the same thing. (The later is called gestational diabetes.)
He's actually ramped down foreign deployments, not just planned to do it.
An act which alone started yet another foreign war:
http://classic.slashdot.org/su...
Which by the way, all of this "ramping down" was already something Bush had planned and was even done under his original timeline, so I'm not letting him off here, but Obama could have stopped it. Still, I'm not sure why you credit Obama for it in the first place.
He's proactively involved special forces in trouble spots before full scale deployments become necessary.
This is something every recent president has done. (And in many cases it gets us into trouble.) Do you have blind worship for this guy or something? I mean this statement alone suggests your nose is presently getting browner as we speak.
But, the machine that Obama represents, corrupt, inconsistent, and self-serving as it is, seems to be an improvement over the machine that Bush represented.
How the hell would that be, exactly? He appoints people to his cabinet who believe they can do whatever the fuck they want. I mean shit, his DOJ thinks it can throw whatever charges it wants even against people that have been found not guilty by a jury of their peers. If anything it's worse, yet somehow you believe it's an improvement?
No it doesn't introduce latency (at least, not any appreciable amount, even for really sensitive applications) rather it's just too unreliable and such a waste of a gigabit broadband connection (remember AC requires channel bonding to get gigabit, and you aren't going to channel bond too well with multiple devices trying to fight for spectrum.) See my reply here:
http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...
I'm going to give a qualified 'no' to this one. I'm a network engineer, this IS my business. The reality is that powerline and wifi both suck balls if you really are *that* excited to have gigabit and you want your whole house to take advantage of it. I've actually heard from hardware engineers that design embedded devices who say that they can't get wifi to work reliably past about 10 meters, and I very much believe them.
Between neighbors doing stupid things (e.g. having the bright idea of making their AP sit on channel 2 when everybody else is on channel 1, not realizing that doing this effectively has them jam your AP and you jam theirs in all areas that they overlap) and the overall noisiness of unlicensed bands in general, wifi sucks for a lot of things. I personally refuse to use it for anything except smartphones and tablets.
Powerline adapters are lame most of the time as well because they work under the assumption that your internal wiring isn't very noisy, which is a very bad assumption to make because the controls for limiting radio interference from certain devices to the power grid aren't very good in many cases, and since you're typically on the same grid as your neighbors, there's fuck all you can do about it. I was lazy when I moved once and I tried a powerline adapter...boy was that a stupid idea. Not only are those things overpriced, but even the best ones don't work for shit in my house. It was rated for 200mbit, and I think in my case it got 2mbit. Worthless.
That said, just wiring ethernet is the best thing you can do. And there's two ways you can do it:
1) Yourself
2) Hire somebody.
There are probably plenty of people you can hire to do it. I personally would wire a five bedroom house for the $150 range plus the cost of materials (usually not much more than $50 for the cabling, ends, jacks, and faceplates, in addition to any switches needed, which my favorite is the Trendnet TEG-S80G, which runs about $30-$40 and is a VERY good 8-port gigabit switch for the price, even has a lot of features and runs so energy efficient that its METAL housing is cool to the touch.) The reason my materials costs are cheaper is because I already have all of the materials, so I only use what I need rather than having to buy in larger quantities than YOU need. Again, somebody you hire is probably in the same boat.
I also do it with all internal wiring so there's no need to run conduit and/or get outdoor grade wiring, and cosmetically it just looks better. Some people balk about going through attics though and will only do external wiring. If the person you're going to hire either doesn't want to do that or demands extra for it, find somebody else (Which by the way, I'm overweight AND work in Arizona's typically 120F attics.) Anyways about an hour per room would earn me about $30 an hour. I think other people would be willing to do it for even less than that though.
If you're doing it yourself, you can probably do the job equally well as I can, but you'll need to go down to home depot or lowes and get the cheapest RJ45 crimper you can find (about $20) maybe a 300 foot spool of cat5e wire (as cheap as $20) a box of RJ45 terminators (about $20) modular jacks (about $5 each) and modular faceplates (about $1 each.)
Go spend about an hour on youtube to see how to crimp RJ45 ends (it's actually easier than it sounds) and stick with the 568-b standard for all ends. Don't worry about crossover, straight through, etc. Every time I hear people try to be "smart" and talk about doing it "right" I kind of chuckle, and here's why: Part of the gigabit ethernet standard (that is, to receive IEEE 802.3 certification for gigabit) the switches AND the ethernet ports MUST provide the auto-MDIX feature, so fretting about crossover is pointless.
As for the jacks, they're really easy to wire, just follow the little instruction manual, they even include the little plastic punch tool in the box (at least, I haven't seen any brand that doesn't include it.)
I'm sorry, I do not trust the benevolence of corporations.
You can equally say "I do not trust the benevolence of strangers" for all of the same reasons you just listed. The only difference with a corporation is that it is much easier to build capital with large pooled resources, something that is rarely achievable as an individual.
That $35 Indian smartphone for instance.
That's not a very good example. I think it's more likely that the design teams encountered problems along the way and as they were running out of time and budget on their design project, they just had to release what they had. This is a common problem in project management, even in free (as in beer) projects like open source software where there's no profit motive at all.
Start there. Read the whole thing, don't just cherry pick looking for proof of your statement.
Since the first half of that page is about the history of Famine (which most of it is history at this point in time) the only relevant bits are anything *after* the green revolution, as per what I stated, so I'll "skip" to this point, thank you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Even so, I don't see any causes listed there that aren't political. Since you're so keen on using wikipedia to make your case, then I'll point you to this line:
Food shortages in a population are caused either by a lack of food or by difficulties in food distribution; it may be worsened by natural climate fluctuations and by extreme political conditions related to oppressive government or warfare.
Now if you read on further, the "lack of food" mentioned is mainly this:
Food shortages in a population are caused either by a lack of food or by difficulties in food distribution; it may be worsened by natural climate fluctuations and by extreme political conditions related to oppressive government or warfare. The conventional explanation until 1981 for the cause of famines was the Food availability decline (FAD) hypothesis. The assumption was that the central cause of all famines was a decline in food availability.[132] However, FAD could not explain why only a certain section of the population such as the agricultural laborer was affected by famines while others were insulated from famines.[133] Based on the studies of some recent famines, the decisive role of FAD has been questioned and it has been suggested that the causal mechanism for precipitating starvation includes many variables other than just decline of food availability. According to this view, famines are a result of entitlements, the theory being proposed is called the "failure of exchange entitlements" or FEE.[133] A person may own various commodities that can be exchanged in a market economy for the other commodities he or she needs. The exchange can happen via trading or production or through a combination of the two. These entitlements are called trade-based or production-based entitlements. Per this proposed view, famines are precipitated due to a breakdown in the ability of the person to exchange his entitlements.[133] An example of famines due to FEE is the inability of an agricultural laborer to exchange his primary entitlement, i.e., labor for rice when his employment became erratic or was completely eliminated.[133]
According to the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), global climate change is additionally challenging the Earth's ability to produce food, potentially leading to famine.[134]
Some elements make a particular region more vulnerable to famine. These include poverty, population growth,[135] an inappropriate social infrastructure, a suppressive political regime, and a weak or under-prepared government.[136]
Thank you.
And you fail at trolling by the way.
You are absolutely fucking wrong. Literally.
Hmm...So what's the right way to fuck?
You're so wrong here that I can say with 100% certainty that you really have zero understanding of any of them (besides, you even misspelled one of them.)
Look at how Six Sigma works for example. Six Sigma is focused entirely on reducing defect rate. A defect is *anything* that causes the customer to not be satisfied. They'll continue to iterate on the design over and over again until the defect rate gets to a ridiculously low number (3.4 defective parts per million.) That means that if the product is consistently bad, then they'll change its design until its right.
Lean Principles means we iterate on the design of the production process until we get it right.
What part about changing the design says "consistent" to you? It's anything but consistent if it is going through changes. Again I'll state, you have NO understanding of any of these concepts.
On the other hand, implementation of technology has become a corporate thing. And as corporations have shown us, they're working in their interests, not ours.
Corporations work with the same interests that anybody else does. That is to say, they can be anything from assholes to being very benevolent.
Even when they are working for their own interests, that isn't a bad thing. When Nokia invented the smartphone, they weren't intending on giving it away for free, rather they wanted to make themselves rich. But that benefited everybody else as well in the process; it eventually lead to technology being so cheap and available that anybody can have it, even the most poor people in the world.
Remember that in any willing transaction, both parties are getting something more valuable to them than what they are giving up. That means these "evil" corporations are giving you something that you value enough that you're willing to give up something else to obtain it.
Or to put it another way, I'm not sure why I should believe anybody who tells me that its evil for a corporation to give you something that you think is so nice that you're ready and willing to pay them for it.
It's wishful thinking. Technology should have produced a world without want, sickness or fear, where no one need labor for their own survival. Instead all that ingenuity went into devising new ways to oppress and kill our fellow man.
Actually you're exactly what he's talking about. Technology has gone a massive way towards reducing famine and sickness. I mean think about it:
- Some people actually argue that human natural selection has ended because medical technology is so good now that people rarely ever die from natural causes unless they're either very old or neglect their own health (e.g. drug abuse.) Contrast to 150 years ago where virtually any sort of serious injury often included death or dismemberment. People nowadays can be born with serious inherited diseases (e.g. cystic fibrosis) and even have kids where in the past that would have been impossible.
- The green revolution (that is, agricultural technology) has turned famine into a distant memory. The root cause of any starvation these days is almost always a 100% political one (e.g. some local warlord or government is deliberately limiting the food supply.)
In spite of the above, you prefer to subscribe to the Hollywood model where technology is only ever used for bad things. As far want and fear, no amount of technology will ever eliminate as those are just part of human nature. I'd actually be more concerned if we did get rid of those, as the only means of doing so would involve altering the person's mind (mind control is another way of putting it; think like the movie Equilibrium.)
It is interesting how lots of people want something, they want it built to last but all people sell is cheap garbage. This is the geek version of the Mom's who can't find clothes for their kids at Target. Lots of people want it, but manufacturers don't make what we want. Can anyone explain why? Isn't there a market for high quality things?
Actually TFS makes a huge mistake in assuming that manufacturers no longer target quality. This just isn't true, there's even an entire industry and field of study that is very much alive and thriving today, just end users are never aware of it, which is actually by design. ISO9000, 9001, Six Sigma, Lean Principles, etc, are huge focuses of manufacturers everywhere.
So, I guess, scientists will be those who say when it ends, if we let them figure it out,
I should have used the word "determine" when it ends. Scientists will not do that. It will just happen when it happens.
and right now most scientists are saying that too much CO2 is a bad thing
I don't study the climate, but I'm still at a loss for why this would be the case. Assuming that warming would be catastrophic (something I myself doubt, mainly based on comments by Patrick Moore) that would work on the assumption that CO2 rise causes a higher climate. Experimental data suggests that it does, but historical data does not, rather the historical data seems to indicate that a rise in global CO2 follows global warming.
the research findings show that it is most definitely human output which is responsible for the vast majority of climate change
Not exactly. Experimental data suggests that CO2 should cause global warming, but historical data suggests that rises in atmospheric CO2 follow global warming. What TFS notes is that we're seeing a rise in CO2, but no corresponding rise in temperature. That doesn't make a very strong case for human output being responsible for much.
It's easy to ignore science
I didn't.
it just shows you have a disdain for knowledge and the scientific method
If anything it shows that you have a disdain for the scientific method because the data found here doesn't support the argument you made a few sentences earlier.
Not that I'm bothered by NASA, but I hate when the science is turned political instead of being....you know...science. And James Hansen tends to do that.
That was my first instinct, but it's also possible that humanity just doesn't have THAT much of an impact. Remember that we're actually living in an unusually stable period of Earth's climate history to begin with, and as recent as the Cretaceous period we had atmospheric CO2 some 20 times what it is now (which BTW happened to be the most "green" period of Earth's history in addition to supporting the largest land animals to ever live.)
Who is to say when this period we're so familiar with ends, our fault or not?
That or unless there's some kind of internet connected medical equipment that has the ability to kill you, how the fuck is this supposed to happen? I think it would be equally feasible to induce a nuclear reactor into meltdown in the same vein as how Stuxnet destroyed all of that equipment while giving false readings on the indicators.
That is to say, not fucking likely.
If somebody had the kind of resources to pull such a thing off, I think their victim is already in a vulnerable enough state that they could hire a hitman anonymously for a few bitcoins.