Stating that it's common courtesy to answer every single phone call is rather myopic.
This implies that simply because you own a phone you give anyone the right to interrupt you.
*ring* Whoops. Life on hold. Must answer phone.
This is the attitude that telemarketing counts on to work.
1. People *will* answer the phone. 2. We'll use those first 20 seconds to hook them in. 3. ????? 4. PROFIT!!!
I don't agree, or at least, I don't own a phone with the same set of implied rights. I own a phone to contact friends/family. If I don't know you, I haven't given you the right to call me unless I've also given you my phone number.
(this includes businesses, for the express reason of calling my phone when problems with an order arise.)
Since I play nice with others, I don't go calling random people in the phone book simply because they have a phone. (ie. for no important reason) Why not? I don't know them. It's an interruption.
Don't agree? That's ok. This isn't a heated debate.
Let's do an experiment, though. Post your phone number.;)
Aren't telemarket calls to cell phones not allowed?
Admittedly, I haven't seen this rule with my own eyes. Anecdotally, most people I know with cell phones claim that it's not allowed because you pay on a per call/minute basis, even if the marketer calls you.
I've been around when they've gotten the occasional telemarketer (since their cell is usually their only phone), and the line "this is a cell phone" usually ends the call promptly.
No root to the box? A dozen known vulnerabilities left? That should pretty much render the root password useless. At least one of those vulnerabilities should get your root privs.
Let's claim them as a gain AND a loss at the same time!
Up the bottom line with units moved. There's got to be some sort of positive accounting that can come from money lost. Some write-off or something. AND. AND. AND. They get to move the piracy lawsuits forward, too.
Evil Exec 1: Hey, we got sued. Evil Exec 2: Yeah. We've got to give away CDs. Evil Exec 1: Best. Idea. Evar.
Both: Rawr, har, har, har...
Nah. You can bet that they'll distribute 75.7 million in CDs at the usual retail price. They might even include them in their ledgers under "inventory sold" to boost any slumping numbers they have to show to their investors.
Excellent comments. Thanks. This topic encompasses such a large body of knowledge that it's difficult to summarize it in a single Slashpost. Looking back, my post falls short in a few categories, but mostely due to what is left out, not what is patently incorrect. (IMO)
I agree: Twinkies are a horrible diet. Handed out food does contain lots of everything, to include protein. The diet America eats has drifted from the USDA's recommendation. Lastly, there is absolutely nothing unnatural about carbs.
The essence of the thought behind the post could be looked at like this: When humans had to work harder to get the nutrition they got, there was a balance between our energetic supplies and demands. The evolution of our environment and evolution of our metabolism were in sync. Now, the evolution of our diet has raced away, leaving our digestive systems without change. (the phrase "evolution of diet" not necessarilly indicating a positive change, simply a change to a great degree)
Fats, proteins and carbs are all good for the human metabolism in the "proper" ratios. What that ratio is, from person to person is the debate at hand. I would put forth that a diet with ratios closer to what our ancestors ate, and an average amount of activity would be healthier than the carbohydrate-heavy diet most Americans eat, today.
Why are carbs the issue? The presence of carbohydrates flips the metabolic switch between "store" and "use". In a diet that gets carbohydrates occasionally, things seem to get balanced pretty well. Most americans' diets have them permanantly in "store" mode, so every pyruvate molecule that isn't used up at the end of the day gets converted and stashed away as fats.
Rather than subscribe to a particular diet, I simply try to eat in a way that is more physiologically correct. What that is for me is my opinion based on my studies in cell/molecular biology, biochemistry, and evolution.
So *that's* why mine wasn't working correctly.. I was doing the old Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A [Start] thing. I kept getting unlimited ammo instead of the 4k rpm drop.
An interesting thing to note is that the actual "blood sugar level" of the hormonally normal person stays within a pretty tight range. It's regulated by insulin and glucogon. When levels start to drop a tad, a little epinephrine (adrenaline) is squeezed out to promote glucose uptake into the cells. The jittery, faint feeling that people feel when they haven't eaten is a direct result of the epinephrine. Would this account for any so-called "nausea" caused by ketones?
The exception is if one is diabetic and blood glucose levels really *are* out of range.
One interesting thing to note about dietary issues in general is the evolution of man vs. the evolution of our diet.
For a moment, toss out everything any diet "expert" has ever told you. Toss out the USDA's damn pyramid. Look at biology. Add up these few, relatively simple facts.
Step in the WayBack Machine(tm) and look at much more simple times. The human body and its metabolism is geared towards periods of relative "feast" and "famine." Seeing as the primary use for fats is fatty acid precursors, the sources of energy are protein and carbohydrates. Carbs are really effecient foods, but are usually scavenged. (fruits, berries, tubers, etc.) Sources of protein are usually hunted.
The way the body's metabolism flips between a glucose-centric pathway to a ketone-centric pathway makes perfect sense. In times of feast (abundant carbohydrates), use the carbs, storing everything away that is in excess. In times of famine, catabolize the fats into their building blocks and get energy from them (while looking for more berries.)
Homo sapiens and its relatives have existed for thousands of years on this metabolic model. Evolution would have it that it is the most successful model for the given environment. Things stay pretty matched while things follow the format of: Humans hunt the tiger. Humans catch the tiger. Tiger eats a human. Humans go look for smaller tigers and potatoes. (ie. food chain struggle, varied diet)
Fast forward to today: Humans hunt McDonalds. A Big Mac gives little struggle (unless you try to fit the entire thing in your mouth at once).
Our food has evolved into a carbohydrate-rich diet because that's what the USDA said was good for us. On that note, carbohydrates are also the cheapest form of food, so when the Gub'ment is handing out subsidized food to everyone (public schools, hospitals, army bases, FBI cafeterias, etc), it would make sense to hand out carbohydrates. Abundant, cheap, energy-rich? C'mon. It makes perfect economic sense. But it doesn't follow nature. Nature would have us eat fewer carbohydrates and more protein, like our ancestors did.
The Atkins diet is simply putting things back into a biological perspective. Most criticisims of the diet focus too much on the induction part of it. Getting the person with a fistfull of twinkies back on the proper metabolic path is an awesome feat of biochemistry and cell biology, but it happens when you go low/no carbs. No one, including Dr. Atkins, says that the induction part of the diet is The Proper Diet.
One need only look at the effect of morbid obesity on life span to say that any negative effects of the induction phase of the diet are minute in comparison to the effects of hauling an extra 100 lbs of fat. Perspective is needed. It's like worrying about whether your 8-character root password has suffecient random characters in it, when you're running the La735t 57@ck 0v3rflo\/\/ on your apache server.
Finally, why rely on other people to digest all of this information (even me) and put their own (perhaps political) spin on it?
For those who wish to delve into the more archane, I suggest you go to NCBI and do some literature searches on the ketogenic diet. You'll see that there are some positive neurobiological and hormonal impacts that it has.
Myopic? Perhaps. You need not shoot the messenger chickens before you've tossed them out with the bathwather (all in one basket, of course)...or something like that.
Gentoo may not be the Linux distro for everyone. My primary systems are Debian. A couple of years ago I ran SuSE on my Pentium Pro dualie. Prior to that, I ran through a few versions of Red Hat. Before that, I was downloading Slackware on the 14 or so floppies on a 9600 modem. (Chest puffing? Nope. Simply a run-though of my distro evolution.)
I enjoy Debian's package system. I think they're working on a hardware detection system based off of Progeny's discover program. I also liked the way *BSD systems are distributed with a source tree allowing you to compile programs for your machine. In this sense, Gentoo is the best of both worlds for me: Effective packaging and a "ports tree" of sorts. Debian takes care of quite a bit of the configuration for you, and this is where Gentoo seems to depart. They leave a lot of the configuration up to whoever's got r0o7 on the box, often requiring more man page reading.
Considering that my Sony GRX570 takes quite a bit of twiddling around with anyway, I felt confident that I could tweak Gentoo. My laptop runs some bleeding-edge acpi patches, so I figured I could try Gentoo out and not feel too badly if anything got borked.
So far, Gentoo has been a real fun time.
I've certainly learned more about how a Linux distro works.
I'm running 2 Athlon dualies at home, and they've got MP processors in them. (Among other things, they search for Mersenne primes.)I kept up with the MP/XP debate on whether they were the same chip, and IIRC, the core is the same and the chips are essentially 99.44% the same. If you look up the whitepapers on the pin-outs of both chips, I believe there is a different signal on the MP chips' pins. It had something to do with something SMP-ish. (real technical, I know, but it's early) Yes, the XP's will run in SMP mode.
A friend of mine works at the Contemporary Arts Center in New Orleans. One of their revenue streams is renting out their 2nd floor, 3rd floor and warehouse space for parties. Just last month she worked a huge Microsoft party at the CAC. HUGE. XP bloat, huge. Gates was rumored to have been there, althought she didn't see him. I'm thinking she said that numerous city officials were there, though....the party after the monumental decision is made, perhaps?
Re:Headline is Wrong - Not White Hat
on
WarTalking Arrest
·
· Score: 1
Dude, get more sophisticated and quit nit picking just because you can.
While wardriving might involve *activity*, and therefore "active" in the sense that an english major would think, I am talking about active or passive with respect to RF transmission, the way a computer science or physics major would think.
Or rather, did I ping your net to find it (think portscanning), or did your AP send out it's normal broadcast, and did I simply "hear" it with kismet.
Have you ever war driven? No? If you had, you would know that to war drive you must put your wireless card in "RF Monitor" mode. That means that the card only listens, and doesn't transmit. So, while wardriving, I *can't* get on your net.
That's where I draw the line. If I stop my car, pull my wireless card out of monitor mode, and associate with your AP, it's no longer "Wardriving just to see who's out there."
Re:Headline is Wrong - Not White Hat
on
WarTalking Arrest
·
· Score: 1
Those are some wise words, sage.
You get duh-points, too.
It's obvious that attempting to gain access to a computer system you're not authorized to access is illegal.
Let's get down to what was said and what I was replying to:
Wardriving is not illegal, in as much that it's only driving around monitoring RF transmissions from people's wireless access points. (See: police scanners, ham radio, sat dishes, whatever)
Running AirSnort and collecting people's weak key packets could be getting into a grey area, but let's get right down to the legality of things... if what I do is ONLY collect your packets and crack your WEP key, it's not illegal.
If I start transmitting with your wep key, associated to your AP, that is illegal. You wouldn't know if I did, anyway.
Wardriving (RF monitoring) is *not* accessing someone's net. It's a passive activity.
What I was replying to was the statement that "he shouldn't have been wardriving."
What this guy did (actually associate with the AP and tiptoe around) could be seen as illegal, yes. The stupidity is that he didn't report it until 10 days later. The *real* stupidity is that people are having heated comments over this when no one knows what he did in those 10 days.
Re:Headline is Wrong - Not White Hat
on
WarTalking Arrest
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry, is the act of wardriving, in and of itself, illegal, now?
Decrypting signals that I'm not meant to see (ie. not paid for) may be deemed illegal under certain laws, but intercepting signals is different.
If it's leaking outside your property, and I'm standing on the other side, the FCC says it's ok for me to pick it up. The law may come down on what I do with it, but the line is drawn.
Hams have been intercepting stuff like NASA transmissions since the birth of the space program.
Get off your high horse. There's nothing illegal or amoral with running a little kismet or netstumbler to see who's got wireless on your block.
You may not be able to get around the "emergency" issue of the general public, but you can certainly justify installing these things in university lecture halls. College students have few real-life emergencies, unless you call trying to decide between going out with friends and studying for that final in number theory.
"Ok, class, *ring* today we're going to go over the finer points of differential equatio*ring*ns."
At 8 in the damn morning. C'mon! Didn't you people get enough to drink or something? Monday mornings are for hangovers.
If you get mad paying $8.50 to see a movie only to have it interrupted by a cell phone, try paying 5,000+ for 17 class hours only to have every single class interrupted every single day by at least 3 or 4 cells.
Creepy? Where's a History & Moral Philosophy class when you need one. (Starship Troopers reference)
It seems you didn't understand what you were reciting and why.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag...and to the republic for which it stands...one nation...indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The Flag and our nation are connected.
It's much more than simply "a piece of cloth," but only because of the symbolism behind it.
You've got 13 stripes (7 red and 6 white) standing for the original colonies. White stars, one for each state, on a blue union. State... Union. The symbolism is obvious.
If it means nothing to you, why not go down to your local VFW and ask them what the flag means to them.
The USA. Freedom. Mom. Apple Pie. Whatever.
They faught for it, too. The values the flag stands for are the same values that were in place during the birth of our country. Religious freedom. Self evident truthes. Inalienable rights.
Freedom from oppression by The Man.;)
Sure, the Constitution is a living document open to interpretation. Sometimes we have more rights, sometimes fewer. If you've gotten too cushy in your marshmellow-fluff lifestyle, cutting political balogna so thin that you can read through it, try looking at just how many countries in this world give you the opportunity to even believe the way you do about the flag or the country, and still say "you've got the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
What was impressed upon me during my 2 tours (military type) in Bosnia and 1 tour in Macedonia was the inescapable lack of freedom the people had. Culture shock. I had taken my rights for granted. I never really thought how good the US and the people who live there have it in comparison to some parts of the world.
So. Your rights are there. Exercise them. Don't honor your flag, or do. The flag, though, is a symbol of the forum in which you get to exercise those rights. If you say you don't care, you should at least say it without ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
Stating that it's common courtesy to answer every single phone call is rather myopic.
;)
This implies that simply because you own a phone you give anyone the right to interrupt you.
*ring*
Whoops. Life on hold. Must answer phone.
This is the attitude that telemarketing counts on to work.
1. People *will* answer the phone.
2. We'll use those first 20 seconds to hook them in.
3. ?????
4. PROFIT!!!
I don't agree, or at least, I don't own a phone with the same set of implied rights. I own a phone to contact friends/family. If I don't know you, I haven't given you the right to call me unless I've also given you my phone number.
(this includes businesses, for the express reason of calling my phone when problems with an order arise.)
Since I play nice with others, I don't go calling random people in the phone book simply because they have a phone. (ie. for no important reason) Why not? I don't know them. It's an interruption.
Don't agree? That's ok. This isn't a heated debate.
Let's do an experiment, though. Post your phone number.
Aren't telemarket calls to cell phones not allowed?
Admittedly, I haven't seen this rule with my own eyes. Anecdotally, most people I know with cell phones claim that it's not allowed because you pay on a per call/minute basis, even if the marketer calls you.
I've been around when they've gotten the occasional telemarketer (since their cell is usually their only phone), and the line "this is a cell phone" usually ends the call promptly.
Anyone have anything further on this?
No root to the box? A dozen known vulnerabilities left? That should pretty much render the root password useless. At least one of those vulnerabilities should get your root privs.
Smash a stack and edit the passwd file.
Damn you, Cytochrome C!!!
I'll get you...you and your little friends BAX and BCL-XL, too!
Dang! You're right. Unless....
Let's claim them as a gain AND a loss at the same time!
Up the bottom line with units moved. There's got to be some sort of positive accounting that can come from money lost. Some write-off or something. AND. AND. AND. They get to move the piracy lawsuits forward, too.
Evil Exec 1: Hey, we got sued.
Evil Exec 2: Yeah. We've got to give away CDs.
Evil Exec 1: Best. Idea. Evar.
Both: Rawr, har, har, har...
Nah. You can bet that they'll distribute 75.7 million in CDs at the usual retail price. They might even include them in their ledgers under "inventory sold" to boost any slumping numbers they have to show to their investors.
Excellent comments. Thanks. This topic encompasses such a large body of knowledge that it's difficult to summarize it in a single Slashpost. Looking back, my post falls short in a few categories, but mostely due to what is left out, not what is patently incorrect. (IMO)
I agree: Twinkies are a horrible diet. Handed out food does contain lots of everything, to include protein. The diet America eats has drifted from the USDA's recommendation. Lastly, there is absolutely nothing unnatural about carbs.
The essence of the thought behind the post could be looked at like this: When humans had to work harder to get the nutrition they got, there was a balance between our energetic supplies and demands. The evolution of our environment and evolution of our metabolism were in sync. Now, the evolution of our diet has raced away, leaving our digestive systems without change. (the phrase "evolution of diet" not necessarilly indicating a positive change, simply a change to a great degree)
Fats, proteins and carbs are all good for the human metabolism in the "proper" ratios. What that ratio is, from person to person is the debate at hand. I would put forth that a diet with ratios closer to what our ancestors ate, and an average amount of activity would be healthier than the carbohydrate-heavy diet most Americans eat, today.
Why are carbs the issue? The presence of carbohydrates flips the metabolic switch between "store" and "use". In a diet that gets carbohydrates occasionally, things seem to get balanced pretty well. Most americans' diets have them permanantly in "store" mode, so every pyruvate molecule that isn't used up at the end of the day gets converted and stashed away as fats.
Rather than subscribe to a particular diet, I simply try to eat in a way that is more physiologically correct. What that is for me is my opinion based on my studies in cell/molecular biology, biochemistry, and evolution.
Again, it's nice to see good comments.
So *that's* why mine wasn't working correctly.. I was doing the old Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A [Start] thing. I kept getting unlimited ammo instead of the 4k rpm drop.
Right on!
An interesting thing to note is that the actual "blood sugar level" of the hormonally normal person stays within a pretty tight range. It's regulated by insulin and glucogon. When levels start to drop a tad, a little epinephrine (adrenaline) is squeezed out to promote glucose uptake into the cells. The jittery, faint feeling that people feel when they haven't eaten is a direct result of the epinephrine. Would this account for any so-called "nausea" caused by ketones?
The exception is if one is diabetic and blood glucose levels really *are* out of range.
That's an excellent book link, thanks!
One interesting thing to note about dietary issues in general is the evolution of man vs. the evolution of our diet.
For a moment, toss out everything any diet "expert" has ever told you. Toss out the USDA's damn pyramid. Look at biology. Add up these few, relatively simple facts.
Step in the WayBack Machine(tm) and look at much more simple times. The human body and its metabolism is geared towards periods of relative "feast" and "famine." Seeing as the primary use for fats is fatty acid precursors, the sources of energy are protein and carbohydrates. Carbs are really effecient foods, but are usually scavenged. (fruits, berries, tubers, etc.) Sources of protein are usually hunted.
The way the body's metabolism flips between a glucose-centric pathway to a ketone-centric pathway makes perfect sense. In times of feast (abundant carbohydrates), use the carbs, storing everything away that is in excess. In times of famine, catabolize the fats into their building blocks and get energy from them (while looking for more berries.)
Homo sapiens and its relatives have existed for thousands of years on this metabolic model. Evolution would have it that it is the most successful model for the given environment. Things stay pretty matched while things follow the format of:
Humans hunt the tiger.
Humans catch the tiger.
Tiger eats a human.
Humans go look for smaller tigers and potatoes.
(ie. food chain struggle, varied diet)
Fast forward to today: Humans hunt McDonalds. A Big Mac gives little struggle (unless you try to fit the entire thing in your mouth at once).
Our food has evolved into a carbohydrate-rich diet because that's what the USDA said was good for us. On that note, carbohydrates are also the cheapest form of food, so when the Gub'ment is handing out subsidized food to everyone (public schools, hospitals, army bases, FBI cafeterias, etc), it would make sense to hand out carbohydrates. Abundant, cheap, energy-rich? C'mon. It makes perfect economic sense. But it doesn't follow nature. Nature would have us eat fewer carbohydrates and more protein, like our ancestors did.
The Atkins diet is simply putting things back into a biological perspective. Most criticisims of the diet focus too much on the induction part of it. Getting the person with a fistfull of twinkies back on the proper metabolic path is an awesome feat of biochemistry and cell biology, but it happens when you go low/no carbs. No one, including Dr. Atkins, says that the induction part of the diet is The Proper Diet.
One need only look at the effect of morbid obesity on life span to say that any negative effects of the induction phase of the diet are minute in comparison to the effects of hauling an extra 100 lbs of fat. Perspective is needed. It's like worrying about whether your 8-character root password has suffecient random characters in it, when you're running the La735t 57@ck 0v3rflo\/\/ on your apache server.
Finally, why rely on other people to digest all of this information (even me) and put their own (perhaps political) spin on it?
For those who wish to delve into the more archane, I suggest you go to NCBI and do some literature searches on the ketogenic diet. You'll see that there are some positive neurobiological and hormonal impacts that it has.
National Center for Biotechnology Information (Medline)
Search for some of these keywords (each line together):
ketosis ketogenic
ketosis epilepsy
ketosis protein sparing
TiFox
Myopic? Perhaps. You need not shoot the messenger chickens before you've tossed them out with the bathwather (all in one basket, of course)...or something like that.
Gentoo may not be the Linux distro for everyone. My primary systems are Debian. A couple of years ago I ran SuSE on my Pentium Pro dualie. Prior to that, I ran through a few versions of Red Hat. Before that, I was downloading Slackware on the 14 or so floppies on a 9600 modem. (Chest puffing? Nope. Simply a run-though of my distro evolution.)
I enjoy Debian's package system. I think they're working on a hardware detection system based off of Progeny's discover program. I also liked the way *BSD systems are distributed with a source tree allowing you to compile programs for your machine. In this sense, Gentoo is the best of both worlds for me: Effective packaging and a "ports tree" of sorts. Debian takes care of quite a bit of the configuration for you, and this is where Gentoo seems to depart. They leave a lot of the configuration up to whoever's got r0o7 on the box, often requiring more man page reading.
Considering that my Sony GRX570 takes quite a bit of twiddling around with anyway, I felt confident that I could tweak Gentoo. My laptop runs some bleeding-edge acpi patches, so I figured I could try Gentoo out and not feel too badly if anything got borked.
So far, Gentoo has been a real fun time.
I've certainly learned more about how a Linux distro works.
This is the same non-FPU decoder that has been in use on the Sharp Zaurus handheld from TheKompany.
;)
It was coded by the author of Vorbis with assembler for ARM processors.
I think it'll work.
... surf the net and make sure you don't have a Bernard Shifman walking in for the job...
I'm running 2 Athlon dualies at home, and they've got MP processors in them. (Among other things, they search for Mersenne primes.)I kept up with the MP/XP debate on whether they were the same chip, and IIRC, the core is the same and the chips are essentially 99.44% the same. If you look up the whitepapers on the pin-outs of both chips, I believe there is a different signal on the MP chips' pins. It had something to do with something SMP-ish. (real technical, I know, but it's early) Yes, the XP's will run in SMP mode.
Yeah, this is the 2nd time we've slashdotted this ISP.
I hate you Haiku,
You are very hard to do,
And five, seven, five?
A friend of mine works at the Contemporary Arts Center in New Orleans. One of their revenue streams is renting out their 2nd floor, 3rd floor and warehouse space for parties. Just last month she worked a huge Microsoft party at the CAC. HUGE. XP bloat, huge. Gates was rumored to have been there, althought she didn't see him. I'm thinking she said that numerous city officials were there, though. ...the party after the monumental decision is made, perhaps?
Try this website. I think you'll like it.
NYT Random Login Generator
Dude, get more sophisticated and quit nit picking just because you can.
While wardriving might involve *activity*, and therefore "active" in the sense that an english major would think, I am talking about active or passive with respect to RF transmission, the way a computer science or physics major would think.
Or rather, did I ping your net to find it (think portscanning), or did your AP send out it's normal broadcast, and did I simply "hear" it with kismet.
Have you ever war driven? No? If you had, you would know that to war drive you must put your wireless card in "RF Monitor" mode. That means that the card only listens, and doesn't transmit. So, while wardriving, I *can't* get on your net.
That's where I draw the line. If I stop my car, pull my wireless card out of monitor mode, and associate with your AP, it's no longer "Wardriving just to see who's out there."
Those are some wise words, sage.
You get duh-points, too.
It's obvious that attempting to gain access to a computer system you're not authorized to access is illegal.
Let's get down to what was said and what I was replying to:
Wardriving is not illegal, in as much that it's only driving around monitoring RF transmissions from people's wireless access points. (See: police scanners, ham radio, sat dishes, whatever)
Running AirSnort and collecting people's weak key packets could be getting into a grey area, but let's get right down to the legality of things... if what I do is ONLY collect your packets and crack your WEP key, it's not illegal.
If I start transmitting with your wep key, associated to your AP, that is illegal. You wouldn't know if I did, anyway.
Wardriving (RF monitoring) is *not* accessing someone's net. It's a passive activity.
What I was replying to was the statement that "he shouldn't have been wardriving."
What this guy did (actually associate with the AP and tiptoe around) could be seen as illegal, yes. The stupidity is that he didn't report it until 10 days later. The *real* stupidity is that people are having heated comments over this when no one knows what he did in those 10 days.
I'm sorry, is the act of wardriving, in and of itself, illegal, now?
Decrypting signals that I'm not meant to see (ie. not paid for) may be deemed illegal under certain laws, but intercepting signals is different.
If it's leaking outside your property, and I'm standing on the other side, the FCC says it's ok for me to pick it up. The law may come down on what I do with it, but the line is drawn.
Hams have been intercepting stuff like NASA transmissions since the birth of the space program.
Get off your high horse. There's nothing illegal or amoral with running a little kismet or netstumbler to see who's got wireless on your block.
TiFox
Actually, she was quite a cutie in her first Playboy photo shoot. No silicone. Miss Feb, 1990.
Check her out here. (Nope, not nude.)
Ya think you search adequately for colleg-y terms so you don't post redundantly, and you miss one that's a few messages before yours.
Snake. Bite me. That whole deal.
Move along mods....no karma whoring here...
...simply the wrong forum, perhaps.
You may not be able to get around the "emergency" issue of the general public, but you can certainly justify installing these things in university lecture halls. College students have few real-life emergencies, unless you call trying to decide between going out with friends and studying for that final in number theory.
"Ok, class, *ring* today we're going to go over the finer points of differential equatio*ring*ns."
At 8 in the damn morning. C'mon! Didn't you people get enough to drink or something? Monday mornings are for hangovers.
If you get mad paying $8.50 to see a movie only to have it interrupted by a cell phone, try paying 5,000+ for 17 class hours only to have every single class interrupted every single day by at least 3 or 4 cells.
Maddening.
TiFox
Creepy? Where's a History & Moral Philosophy class when you need one. (Starship Troopers reference)
;)
It seems you didn't understand what you were reciting and why.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag...and to the republic for which it stands...one nation...indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The Flag and our nation are connected.
It's much more than simply "a piece of cloth," but only because of the symbolism behind it.
You've got 13 stripes (7 red and 6 white) standing for the original colonies. White stars, one for each state, on a blue union. State... Union. The symbolism is obvious.
If it means nothing to you, why not go down to your local VFW and ask them what the flag means to them.
The USA. Freedom. Mom. Apple Pie. Whatever.
They faught for it, too. The values the flag stands for are the same values that were in place during the birth of our country. Religious freedom. Self evident truthes. Inalienable rights.
Freedom from oppression by The Man.
Sure, the Constitution is a living document open to interpretation. Sometimes we have more rights, sometimes fewer. If you've gotten too cushy in your marshmellow-fluff lifestyle, cutting political balogna so thin that you can read through it, try looking at just how many countries in this world give you the opportunity to even believe the way you do about the flag or the country, and still say "you've got the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
What was impressed upon me during my 2 tours (military type) in Bosnia and 1 tour in Macedonia was the inescapable lack of freedom the people had. Culture shock. I had taken my rights for granted. I never really thought how good the US and the people who live there have it in comparison to some parts of the world.
So. Your rights are there. Exercise them. Don't honor your flag, or do. The flag, though, is a symbol of the forum in which you get to exercise those rights. If you say you don't care, you should at least say it without ignorance.
TiFox