"'The problem is not a lack of highly educated workers,' said Scott Kirwin, founder of the Information Technology Professionals Association of America. 'The problem is a lack of highly educated workers willing to work for the minimum wage or lower in the U.S. Costs are driving outsourcing, not the quality of American schools.'"
Translation: 'The problem is that people who slave away anywhere from two to eight years of their lives in college actually have the unmitigated gall to expect to get paid a fair wage, as a return on their investment of time and money. We can't have that! Especially not when there's plenty of cheap slave labor overseas!!'
Exaggerating? Probably just a bit. But honestly, that's the impression I got from this creep in reading between the lines of his statement.
Am I wrong, or isn't the whole point of getting a degree, and lots of experience, motivation for employers to pay MORE than minimum wage? For that matter, how in the Multiverse can anyone even live at the poverty level on the standard minimum wage in this country?
Don't even get me started on the quality (or often the lack thereof) in U.S. schools. My local community college has cancelled their Electronics Technology program indefinitely. I count myself as incredibly fortunate that I got through all but four courses (two physics, two math) for my A.A.S. degree in the field, but what about the kids who just started into the program when it went under?
Scott Kirwin is, of course, entitled to his opinion. He also has my most cordial invitation to take said opinion, and implode at his earliest convenience.
Want to watch a movie that depicts people being decapitated, eviscerated (with very realistic-looking blood-and-guts effects), and turned into breeding hosts for acid-blooded parasites (the 'Alien' series)? No problem!
Want to watch news stories that capture the 'Horror of War' close up and personal? No problem!
Want to watch another movie that depicts people being hacked apart, in very grisly detail, by a chainsaw-wielding maniac? No problem!
Want to take a look at pictures of a naked female body on the Internet, or pictures of two people engaged in acts of trying to bring each other a little pleasure? NOW we have a problem!
Given all the awful stuff that's going on in the world today, am I the only one who thinks that police and other law-enforcement agencies could be doing better things with their time than illustrating (by example) that we, as a race, need to be Really Ashamed of our bodies?
Good Lord above... What about the millions of private E-mail boxes, privately-owned servers, and God only knows how many other computing resources, belonging to other people, that Ralsky and his spamming butt-buddies have already abused, and CONTINUE to abuse in some cases?
I would be very interested in hearing how "fair" the owners of all those resources think the new law is. Oh, granted, said law is far from perfect. However, if it helps to force criminals like Ralsky out of business for good, I will be the first to give it a round of applause.
Ralsky's misguided belief that he has any right at all to abuse property that does not belong to him is typical of the spammer mindset. The sooner he, Scotty 'Snotty' Richter, Eddy Marin, and all their spamming ilk get shut down permanently, the better off the Internet will be.
Good info, thanks much! Come to think of it, I was a little surprised that my dual-CPU Athlon system didn't radiate much of anything when I had its guts open on my workbench.
Self-building a system, especially with a creative enclosure, is never a Bad Thing. However, there is one very important -- I would even say 'critical' -- aspect of doing so that no one seems to be paying attention to, and it applies to ANY computer case that is not a full wrap-around all-metal enclosure.
Specifically: Unless you take explicit steps to electrically shield the transparent parts, the enclosure will never meet FCC Part 15 requirements for not radiating RF energy, or being susceptible to outside RFI (Radio Frequency Interference).
Here's the filthy details, and some more info on why this is a Bad Thing. Early computer systems and peripherals were classed as "Unintentional Radiators" under part 15.3(z) of the FCC regs. Later, as processor speeds climbed, an additional category of 'Digital Device' was created under part 15.3(k).
It was under this part that two subclasses were created. You may have heard references to something being a "Class A Computing Device" in the commercial world, or a "Class B Computing Device" in the consumer world. Both of these subclasses have to do with how much RF the device radiates under normal use, and how much potential it has to interfere with other nearby devices, including TV's, stereos, etc. The ARRL's web site has a page that summarizes this, and provides a great explanation on the issue of what 'harmful interference' is, and what the rules say about responsibility for solving issues involving it.
The Reader's Disgust version is this: Sure, you can build your computer into the flashiest Lexan-and-Aluminum enclosure you can find. You can equip it with all kinds of see-through parts, flashing LEDs, and other useless fluff to your heart's content.
HOWEVER -- remember that any material other than metal, solid or mesh, is going to be pretty much transparent to whatever RF energy your system spews into the surrounding environment in the course of its normal operation. If your flashy see-through system causes interference to ANY other RF-using device that is NOT covered by Part 15, to the point where said device cannot operate properly, it is YOUR responsibility to clean it up, electrically speaking.
Transparency to RF is a two-edged sword. You might get incredibly lucky, in that your way-cool see-through system might not be causing any interference at all. But what happens when, just as one example, the ham radio operator next door to you starts transmitting with a 1,000-watt-plus signal? (Yes, we are allowed to use that kind of power, and more).
Another example: What happens if a cop, the paramedics, or anyone else with a portable transceiver happens to transmit with said portable and they happen to be close to your computer at the same time?
Either way, a good chunk of the RF energy from those transmissions are going to go straight into your computer, because all that Lexan is going to let it in like a firehose stream through tissue paper. At best, your system may lock up or reboot unexpectedly. At worst, you could be looking at hard drive corruption.
And guess who's responsible for clearing up the resultant mess? Not the ham radio op. What they're doing is covered very well indeed under FCC Part 97. (That's not to say they'd just tell you to fix it yourself -- most hams are pretty nice about helping you to fix such issues if their transmitters appear to be wreaking havoc, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the owner of the Part 15 device).
Not the cops, paramedics, or whoever else was using the portable radio either. They're operating perfectly within the limits of their FCC license as well. No, the onus for fixing the problem lands right back on your shoulders, as the computer owner, all because you wanted a
I just got a T730 to replace my broken StarTAC portable. In going through the manual, I discovered that it is GPS-capable, and keeps a running internal record of the phone's geographic position.
However, Motorola apparently anticipated the privacy concerns inherent to such a feature. The phone's configuration allows three explicit options for the location-transmit feature: Disabled entirely, enabled ONLY for calls to 911, or enabled for all calls.
For my part, I don't mind at all if 911 has a record of my position for a call. I'm moving (in a vehicle) for 99% of my calls to them in any case (usually reporting stuck motorists or actual accidents). With that in mind, I have mine enabled for 'Report when calling 911 only.'
The point is that, if Motorola is designing their product so that the feature can be controlled by the user, other phone manufacturers would be foolish to do otherwise.
Except for the more intensive laptop examinations, and the longer lines, I've not noticed any real changes at the checkpoints.
The biggest issues I had were...
--Coming through Seatac to meet my wife as she returned from Florida. Had my Motorola portable radio (an MT2000) with me, as I was keeping in touch with some (amateur radio) friends of ours while I waited for the flight. By odd chance, it happens that the security screeners also use MT2000's, but not the VHF model that I had. Red flag! I got asked twice if it could work on "their" frequency, and told them (twice) "No, it's not even in the same band as yours." I know this to be true, because the security guys work on the Port of Seattle's 800MHz trunked system. They let me through, but I could tell that you could whack them over the head with the facts, and they still wouldn't "get it."
--On a change-of-planes at Atlanta, while traveling from Seattle to Orlando. I had already been thoroughly screened, and there was no additional X-ray type security checkpoint when simply changing gates to get to the next flight. Despite this, and for reasons still unknown to me, I got all but strip-searched by the morons at a specially set-up secondary checkpoint at the gate. I was wearing open-type sandals (the all-terrain type) with no socks, and I still got asked to take 'em off. Go figure.
I would agree with another poster: Dress well, keep a cool head, and be prepared to explain anything you're carrying, electronics-wise, in full.
Something that the Redmond Empire conveniently neglects to mention is that an awful lot of the spam is due to virus-compromised systems running -- you guessed it -- Microsoft Windows! I've lost count of the number of broadband IP ranges, notably from Shaw Cable and Comcast, that I've had to dump into our domain's local 'Reject' list thanks to their endless attempts to propagate Swen, SoBig, or whatever the latest spammer-zombie trojan is.
Perhaps, if Steve 'Uncle Fester' Ballmer and his cronies had paid more attention to basic security to begin with, or had taken the trouble to actually try and educate their customers about the most basic computing security steps, there wouldn't be such a huge problem now.
This 'Penny Black' nonsense looks like nothing more than a means for them to make money off a mess that they created in the first place.
"For 2003, his display sports over 200,000 lights, each string is controlled by computer to light to the tune of a Radio Station playing christmas music..."
So what happens when you stop feeding in traditional Christmas stuff and pipe something like Bob Rivers 'Twisted Christmas' into it?
I wonder if it would act anything like a Teddy Ruxpin with a 'Metallica' tape (appropriately encoded on the animation data track, of course) installed?
The best possible way I know of to beat the layoff blues is not to over-specialize in any one area of computers, networking, electronics, or other tech fields. Diversify your skill base as much as you possibly can.
For my part, I started out by fixing Teletype machines and data terminals in the late 70's to early 80's. Went from there into telephony (phone systems and subscriber hardware, key systems, PBX/PABX) in the mid-80's.
The late 80's saw me working in the land/mobile 2-way radio field, as did the early 90's. This included work on analog microwave systems and simulcast repeater nets.
Mid-90's, I found myself in the datacomm and networking arena, taking care of the University of California's intercampus T1 network and the stuff that hooked up to it.
Late 90's to this century: A brief stint in radio again, and then into computers and IT work. Now, with the slump in IT (and the fact that I really miss having a soldering pencil in one hand and an oscilloscope probe in the other), I'm looking at getting back into radio and electronics work again.
Being multitalented has really helped. Tech employment slump notwithstanding (EVERY technical field was affected, not just IT), I've rarely had trouble finding a job. In fact, I keep several different resumes, each highlighting a different set of my skill base.
If it worked for me, it can work for others. May you find a new slot quickly.
Some player manufacturers thought ahead, and provided means for at least those who know how to wield a soldering pencil to do something about region encoding.
One example I can think of is that of our player. It didn't take me long at all to find this page which describes, in disgustingly clear detail, how to make it region-switchable AND turn off that nasty Macrovision drenn.
Region encoding was a silly idea from the start. There's just too many ways around it.
Oh, there are worse boards out there, trust me! There's two along the freeway southwest of us. One in particular has attracted a huge number of complaints from motorists and the State Patrol. They can't do anything about it directly, since it's on private land and privately owned, but it has not been for lack of trying.
The thing is a huge, bidirectional, full-color matrix display that is frequently doing its best to imitate a color TV set. We're talking full-motion ads, in full view of all four lanes of Interstate 5 north and southbound.
I've never thought of it as anything but an enormous, obnoxious, and exceedingly unnecessary distraction for drivers in a part of the freeway where they definitely do not need distracting. I've made it a point never to recommend, or do business with, any local business that has advertised on that sign.
Re:Spoofing the billboard
on
Smart Billboards
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That's the only way they could work. I can tell you from direct experience, though, that any billboards that have this are going to have to have a pretty sensitive receiver and a good antenna system, thanks to how weak that local oscillator signal is. That's going to drive up the cost significantly.
Another consideration: Do all modern broadcast receivers use the exact same first IF frequency? I can say with confidence that very few 2-way radios do. I've seen a number of cases where even different model series of radios from the same manufacturer will have different IF's. Motorola is a great example of this. I've seen them use 10.700, 14.400, 21.400, 11.245, and 45.000, all depending on what series of radio it was.
Anyway, getting back to spoofing: It might be amusing to, if one has mobile HF capability, adjust one's HF radio to a frequency other than what the broadcast radio might be putting out and key-down for a few seconds (in AM mode, so you'll put out a real carrier -- SSB would do nothing unless you actually spoke). See if you can fool the silly thing.
AP SPOOFWIRE -- Two microwave ovens were seriously damaged today at the Internet and Technology Conference in Switzerland when numerous conference attendees, annoyed when they discovered that their badges contained RFID chips, tried to disable those same chips through "nuking" them in the ovens.
Cafeteria staff were stunned by the spectacle produced when each oven was crammed full of badges, and the 'Start' button pressed. "I'd always heard stories about what would happen if you put anything with metal in it into a microwave" said head cook Rowena Splatt, "But I never thought I would ever see it in action! That horrible buzzing noise, the showers of sparks -- though I will admit that all those colors were kind of pretty -- but the smell! Oh, that was the worst part!! It reminded us all of last week's liver-and-onion special, with hints of burned cranberries and overcooked zucchini..."
Security personnel monitoring the RFID receiver systems also reported strange occurrences. "It was like thousands of these tinny little Munchkin-like voices screamed 'Help Meeeeeee!' all at once" reported Lt. Take-Emin Andbookem, head of security for the event. "And you wouldn't believe the volume! I've still got six people in the hospital, getting checked for hearing damage."
The event's organizers have reported that the badges will be reissued -- without RFID chips, this time -- and that the homogenized melted-together masses of the other badges will be made into holiday mobiles which will also feature unused AOL 9.0 CDs and old 30-pin memory SIMMs.
I wouldn't know about the licensing. I suspect, in many cases, it was covered by/included with the machine that it was responsible for controlling. I only did computing support at Boeing; Another division was responsible for software and license procurement.
It may surprise a lot of folks to know that good ole' DOS is still widely used, and wildly popular, in industrial and engineering environments. And why not? Very small footprint, mature and stable, relatively easy to program for, great for embedded stuff, and loads of 'net-based software archives Out There with enough handy applications and programmig tools to choke a goat.
During my tenure at Boeing, I saw a number of CNC (Computer Numerical Control) machine-control applications in the factory that were all DOS-based. In the electronics labs, many design or data-acquisition tools are DOS-based. And here, in my home lab, I've got a blort-load of radio service software that requires a pure DOS platform or it simply won't run.
"Retired" OS's are popular for a variety of reasons, just as older test equipment is often favored over much newer stuff. One of those reasons is that the underlying principles of what you're trying to do never change: Only the degree of complexity needed to get it done does.
I seem to be one of the few who thought the new BSG was not only unworthy of the name, but sucked better than a shop-vac with a fresh filter.
Have we all forgotten the way SciFi cancelled 'Farscape' despite its #1 ratings, claiming that it was "too expensive?"
Now, we have a (no doubt -very- expensive) remake of a 70's series that, while it may not have been the greatest thing since sliced bread, did have some rare gems among the episodes ("War of the Gods," with Patrick McNee as the -- very classy, IMO -- villian, Count Iblis, comes immediately to mind).
Where do you think the money to do the new BSG came from?
The original BSG series had a core story to it (the "Lost 13th Tribe") and, I think, had enormous potential that was left undeveloped by the time the series was cancelled. If they'd had better writing -- perhaps even let some of the key actors develop episodes, as has been done with 'Stargate: SG1' -- it would have been much better, and might even have lasted another few seasons.
The new BSG, however, seems to be depending on CGI effects, gratuitous sex, and a "grunge" look to sell itself. As if that weren't hollow enough, they stole the coordinate system from 'Star Trek' ("Cylon fighters coming in at 70 mark 114," or something to that effect), and the ship-to-ship radio sound effects from 'Star Wars' (the kind of hollow effect you hear on the radio voices, indicative of single sideband transmission).
The uniforms look like a weird cross between those used by the 'Eastern Alliance' in the old BSG series and those in 'Starship Troopers' (the movie), and they even stole sound effects (engines, mainly) for the vipers from the old series.
Maybe I'm just showing my age, but the BSG remake made the (very short) list of movies and TV shows that have made me feel physically ill (as in nauseous). Honestly, I think Richard Hatch and Glenn Larson should team up and sue the collective pants off SciFi for this unwarranted massacre.
Make it a series? The very thought makes my skin crawl. Given a choice between the new BSG and 'Farscape,' I'd welcome Moya and her crew back any day.
Let me first say that any sort of DDoS or other such abusive activity speaks pretty badly of those doing the abusing.
With that firmly in mind, I think I can sum up SCO's current situation in five simple words.
'They brought it on themselves.'
For the Nov. 23rd strip, Illiad (http://ars.userfriendly.org) came up with 'Dalek McBride' in all his tin glory, shouting "Lit-I-Gate... LIT-I-GATE!!!" I guess the real 'Dalek McBride' hasn't learned yet that pissing people off is not a good way to run a business (unless, that is, he's trying to run it into the ground).
3E7 quatloos says that SCO will be filing for Chapter 11 within three years.
Google for 'honeypot' or 'proxypot.' In fact, Security Focus ran a series of comprehensive articles on honeypots, one of which is here. There's also a huge web site devoted to nothing but honeypots at this link.
Proxypots are a variation of the honeypot idea. A proxypot pretends to be an open proxy server which, instead of actually passing traffic sent to it, simply logs what's going on and sends the actual traffic to a specific destination specified by the proxypot operator. This can be Dave Null's in-box or anywhere else said operator wants.
Details of proxypots may be found here, and here, just to name a couple.
"well watch soon the spammers will sue you for blocking their spam as it blocks legally protected interstate trade..."
I don't think so.
My server farm is still my own. I pay monthly fees for the bandwidth and electricity it consumes, and I pay out-of-pocket for the repairs if something breaks.
I'm the one who decides what traffic I will accept into our domains, and what traffic I will not. I am accountable in this ONLY to myself and two other users.
When Uncle Sam decides to start paying me to run that server farm, THEN, and ONLY then, will I allow ANYone other than the three of us to have a say in what traffic comes through.
Until that day comes, I will do whatever I believe is necessary to protect our private property from intrusion by unsolicited advertising, just as I would take steps to protect the front side of our house from becoming a billboard.
Cellphone jammers are a bad idea on several levels. I'm just waiting to see the news story about someone who has a heart attack or epileptic seizure hit, and that the victim died because someone tried to use their cellphone to call for help, but said phone was within range of a jamming device.
I suspect it would be reported that the few extra seconds (or minutes) taken for the caller to get out of range of said device, and call for help, could have made all the difference in the world.
Take that another way: What if someone's within range of one of these things, and someone tries to call them to let them know that their wife or roomie or whoever has been critically injured, or fallen seriously ill? Seems to me that whoever's operating the jammer under such conditions could be in for some serious litigation.
Another example. Lots of firefighters and paramedics are beginning to depend on cellphones for much of their communications. I can only imagine the consequences if someone in the area is operating a jammer.
I know others have posted that they'd like to jam something "just within ten feet" of themselves, but -- news flash! -- a jamming signal, by its very nature, cannot be limited in this way. In the world of RF, when you radiate a signal, it's going to radiate all over the place. The only way you can control where it goes is to put a Faraday cage (read: shielded enclosure) around the area you want to irradiate (and I think people would look mighty silly walking around in copper-mesh suits, with their 'tail' of a grounding wire).
In other words: Any signal powerful enough to overcome a cellphone's normal exchange with a nearby cell site is going to have to be powerful enough to radiate a lot further than ten feet, period.
A REAL solution to the problem would be (guess what?) education and attitude adjustment. Get people to the point where turning their phones OFF (or at least putting them into 'Silent Ring' mode) is a reflex action for restaurants, movie theaters, etc. Start such teaching early ("Responsible Cellphone Use 101" anyone?), perhaps including it as part of common courtesy and manners, and it'll be something that's useful for life.
Cellphone users really need a strong reminder that their world is not going to collapse if they don't catch every call the millisecond it comes in. At the rate we're going, I won't be surprised to learn that "cellphone addiction" becomes a very real medical or psychological disorder in times to come.
Slashdot Mirror
"'The problem is not a lack of highly educated workers,' said Scott Kirwin, founder of the Information Technology Professionals Association of America. 'The problem is a lack of highly educated workers willing to work for the minimum wage or lower in the U.S. Costs are driving outsourcing, not the quality of American schools.'"
Translation: 'The problem is that people who slave away anywhere from two to eight years of their lives in college actually have the unmitigated gall to expect to get paid a fair wage, as a return on their investment of time and money. We can't have that! Especially not when there's plenty of cheap slave labor overseas!!'
Exaggerating? Probably just a bit. But honestly, that's the impression I got from this creep in reading between the lines of his statement.
Am I wrong, or isn't the whole point of getting a degree, and lots of experience, motivation for employers to pay MORE than minimum wage? For that matter, how in the Multiverse can anyone even live at the poverty level on the standard minimum wage in this country?
Don't even get me started on the quality (or often the lack thereof) in U.S. schools. My local community college has cancelled their Electronics Technology program indefinitely. I count myself as incredibly fortunate that I got through all but four courses (two physics, two math) for my A.A.S. degree in the field, but what about the kids who just started into the program when it went under?
Scott Kirwin is, of course, entitled to his opinion. He also has my most cordial invitation to take said opinion, and implode at his earliest convenience.
"Anyone on /. is experiencing the same thing..."
Speak for yourself. All of my systems have achieved a very decent level of stabili$&*!@##$..*&NO CARRIER
Want to watch a movie that depicts people being decapitated, eviscerated (with very realistic-looking blood-and-guts effects), and turned into breeding hosts for acid-blooded parasites (the 'Alien' series)? No problem!
Want to watch news stories that capture the 'Horror of War' close up and personal? No problem!
Want to watch another movie that depicts people being hacked apart, in very grisly detail, by a chainsaw-wielding maniac? No problem!
Want to take a look at pictures of a naked female body on the Internet, or pictures of two people engaged in acts of trying to bring each other a little pleasure? NOW we have a problem!
Given all the awful stuff that's going on in the world today, am I the only one who thinks that police and other law-enforcement agencies could be doing better things with their time than illustrating (by example) that we, as a race, need to be Really Ashamed of our bodies?
Good Lord above... What about the millions of private E-mail boxes, privately-owned servers, and God only knows how many other computing resources, belonging to other people, that Ralsky and his spamming butt-buddies have already abused, and CONTINUE to abuse in some cases?
I would be very interested in hearing how "fair" the owners of all those resources think the new law is. Oh, granted, said law is far from perfect. However, if it helps to force criminals like Ralsky out of business for good, I will be the first to give it a round of applause.
Ralsky's misguided belief that he has any right at all to abuse property that does not belong to him is typical of the spammer mindset. The sooner he, Scotty 'Snotty' Richter, Eddy Marin, and all their spamming ilk get shut down permanently, the better off the Internet will be.
Good info, thanks much! Come to think of it, I was a little surprised that my dual-CPU Athlon system didn't radiate much of anything when I had its guts open on my workbench.
Self-building a system, especially with a creative enclosure, is never a Bad Thing. However, there is one very important -- I would even say 'critical' -- aspect of doing so that no one seems to be paying attention to, and it applies to ANY computer case that is not a full wrap-around all-metal enclosure.
Specifically: Unless you take explicit steps to electrically shield the transparent parts, the enclosure will never meet FCC Part 15 requirements for not radiating RF energy, or being susceptible to outside RFI (Radio Frequency Interference).
Here's the filthy details, and some more info on why this is a Bad Thing. Early computer systems and peripherals were classed as "Unintentional Radiators" under part 15.3(z) of the FCC regs. Later, as processor speeds climbed, an additional category of 'Digital Device' was created under part 15.3(k).
It was under this part that two subclasses were created. You may have heard references to something being a "Class A Computing Device" in the commercial world, or a "Class B Computing Device" in the consumer world. Both of these subclasses have to do with how much RF the device radiates under normal use, and how much potential it has to interfere with other nearby devices, including TV's, stereos, etc. The ARRL's web site has a page that summarizes this, and provides a great explanation on the issue of what 'harmful interference' is, and what the rules say about responsibility for solving issues involving it.
The Reader's Disgust version is this: Sure, you can build your computer into the flashiest Lexan-and-Aluminum enclosure you can find. You can equip it with all kinds of see-through parts, flashing LEDs, and other useless fluff to your heart's content.
HOWEVER -- remember that any material other than metal, solid or mesh, is going to be pretty much transparent to whatever RF energy your system spews into the surrounding environment in the course of its normal operation. If your flashy see-through system causes interference to ANY other RF-using device that is NOT covered by Part 15, to the point where said device cannot operate properly, it is YOUR responsibility to clean it up, electrically speaking.
Transparency to RF is a two-edged sword. You might get incredibly lucky, in that your way-cool see-through system might not be causing any interference at all. But what happens when, just as one example, the ham radio operator next door to you starts transmitting with a 1,000-watt-plus signal? (Yes, we are allowed to use that kind of power, and more).
Another example: What happens if a cop, the paramedics, or anyone else with a portable transceiver happens to transmit with said portable and they happen to be close to your computer at the same time?
Either way, a good chunk of the RF energy from those transmissions are going to go straight into your computer, because all that Lexan is going to let it in like a firehose stream through tissue paper. At best, your system may lock up or reboot unexpectedly. At worst, you could be looking at hard drive corruption.
And guess who's responsible for clearing up the resultant mess? Not the ham radio op. What they're doing is covered very well indeed under FCC Part 97. (That's not to say they'd just tell you to fix it yourself -- most hams are pretty nice about helping you to fix such issues if their transmitters appear to be wreaking havoc, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the owner of the Part 15 device).
Not the cops, paramedics, or whoever else was using the portable radio either. They're operating perfectly within the limits of their FCC license as well. No, the onus for fixing the problem lands right back on your shoulders, as the computer owner, all because you wanted a
I just got a T730 to replace my broken StarTAC portable. In going through the manual, I discovered that it is GPS-capable, and keeps a running internal record of the phone's geographic position.
However, Motorola apparently anticipated the privacy concerns inherent to such a feature. The phone's configuration allows three explicit options for the location-transmit feature: Disabled entirely, enabled ONLY for calls to 911, or enabled for all calls.
For my part, I don't mind at all if 911 has a record of my position for a call. I'm moving (in a vehicle) for 99% of my calls to them in any case (usually reporting stuck motorists or actual accidents). With that in mind, I have mine enabled for 'Report when calling 911 only.'
The point is that, if Motorola is designing their product so that the feature can be controlled by the user, other phone manufacturers would be foolish to do otherwise.
Except for the more intensive laptop examinations, and the longer lines, I've not noticed any real changes at the checkpoints.
The biggest issues I had were...
--Coming through Seatac to meet my wife as she returned from Florida. Had my Motorola portable radio (an MT2000) with me, as I was keeping in touch with some (amateur radio) friends of ours while I waited for the flight. By odd chance, it happens that the security screeners also use MT2000's, but not the VHF model that I had. Red flag! I got asked twice if it could work on "their" frequency, and told them (twice) "No, it's not even in the same band as yours." I know this to be true, because the security guys work on the Port of Seattle's 800MHz trunked system. They let me through, but I could tell that you could whack them over the head with the facts, and they still wouldn't "get it."
--On a change-of-planes at Atlanta, while traveling from Seattle to Orlando. I had already been thoroughly screened, and there was no additional X-ray type security checkpoint when simply changing gates to get to the next flight. Despite this, and for reasons still unknown to me, I got all but strip-searched by the morons at a specially set-up secondary checkpoint at the gate. I was wearing open-type sandals (the all-terrain type) with no socks, and I still got asked to take 'em off. Go figure.
I would agree with another poster: Dress well, keep a cool head, and be prepared to explain anything you're carrying, electronics-wise, in full.
Something that the Redmond Empire conveniently neglects to mention is that an awful lot of the spam is due to virus-compromised systems running -- you guessed it -- Microsoft Windows! I've lost count of the number of broadband IP ranges, notably from Shaw Cable and Comcast, that I've had to dump into our domain's local 'Reject' list thanks to their endless attempts to propagate Swen, SoBig, or whatever the latest spammer-zombie trojan is.
Perhaps, if Steve 'Uncle Fester' Ballmer and his cronies had paid more attention to basic security to begin with, or had taken the trouble to actually try and educate their customers about the most basic computing security steps, there wouldn't be such a huge problem now.
This 'Penny Black' nonsense looks like nothing more than a means for them to make money off a mess that they created in the first place.
"For 2003, his display sports over 200,000 lights, each string is controlled by computer to light to the tune of a Radio Station playing christmas music..."
So what happens when you stop feeding in traditional Christmas stuff and pipe something like Bob Rivers 'Twisted Christmas' into it?
I wonder if it would act anything like a Teddy Ruxpin with a 'Metallica' tape (appropriately encoded on the animation data track, of course) installed?
The best possible way I know of to beat the layoff blues is not to over-specialize in any one area of computers, networking, electronics, or other tech fields. Diversify your skill base as much as you possibly can.
For my part, I started out by fixing Teletype machines and data terminals in the late 70's to early 80's. Went from there into telephony (phone systems and subscriber hardware, key systems, PBX/PABX) in the mid-80's.
The late 80's saw me working in the land/mobile 2-way radio field, as did the early 90's. This included work on analog microwave systems and simulcast repeater nets.
Mid-90's, I found myself in the datacomm and networking arena, taking care of the University of California's intercampus T1 network and the stuff that hooked up to it.
Late 90's to this century: A brief stint in radio again, and then into computers and IT work. Now, with the slump in IT (and the fact that I really miss having a soldering pencil in one hand and an oscilloscope probe in the other), I'm looking at getting back into radio and electronics work again.
Being multitalented has really helped. Tech employment slump notwithstanding (EVERY technical field was affected, not just IT), I've rarely had trouble finding a job. In fact, I keep several different resumes, each highlighting a different set of my skill base.
If it worked for me, it can work for others. May you find a new slot quickly.
...except for one tiny little detail.
You DON'T kill off your two main heroes! ARRRRGGHHHH!
Some player manufacturers thought ahead, and provided means for at least those who know how to wield a soldering pencil to do something about region encoding.
One example I can think of is that of our player. It didn't take me long at all to find this page which describes, in disgustingly clear detail, how to make it region-switchable AND turn off that nasty Macrovision drenn.
Region encoding was a silly idea from the start. There's just too many ways around it.
Oh, there are worse boards out there, trust me! There's two along the freeway southwest of us. One in particular has attracted a huge number of complaints from motorists and the State Patrol. They can't do anything about it directly, since it's on private land and privately owned, but it has not been for lack of trying.
The thing is a huge, bidirectional, full-color matrix display that is frequently doing its best to imitate a color TV set. We're talking full-motion ads, in full view of all four lanes of Interstate 5 north and southbound.
I've never thought of it as anything but an enormous, obnoxious, and exceedingly unnecessary distraction for drivers in a part of the freeway where they definitely do not need distracting. I've made it a point never to recommend, or do business with, any local business that has advertised on that sign.
That's the only way they could work. I can tell you from direct experience, though, that any billboards that have this are going to have to have a pretty sensitive receiver and a good antenna system, thanks to how weak that local oscillator signal is. That's going to drive up the cost significantly.
Another consideration: Do all modern broadcast receivers use the exact same first IF frequency? I can say with confidence that very few 2-way radios do. I've seen a number of cases where even different model series of radios from the same manufacturer will have different IF's. Motorola is a great example of this. I've seen them use 10.700, 14.400, 21.400, 11.245, and 45.000, all depending on what series of radio it was.
Anyway, getting back to spoofing: It might be amusing to, if one has mobile HF capability, adjust one's HF radio to a frequency other than what the broadcast radio might be putting out and key-down for a few seconds (in AM mode, so you'll put out a real carrier -- SSB would do nothing unless you actually spoke). See if you can fool the silly thing.
AP SPOOFWIRE -- Two microwave ovens were seriously damaged today at the Internet and Technology Conference in Switzerland when numerous conference attendees, annoyed when they discovered that their badges contained RFID chips, tried to disable those same chips through "nuking" them in the ovens.
Cafeteria staff were stunned by the spectacle produced when each oven was crammed full of badges, and the 'Start' button pressed. "I'd always heard stories about what would happen if you put anything with metal in it into a microwave" said head cook Rowena Splatt, "But I never thought I would ever see it in action! That horrible buzzing noise, the showers of sparks -- though I will admit that all those colors were kind of pretty -- but the smell! Oh, that was the worst part!! It reminded us all of last week's liver-and-onion special, with hints of burned cranberries and overcooked zucchini..."
Security personnel monitoring the RFID receiver systems also reported strange occurrences. "It was like thousands of these tinny little Munchkin-like voices screamed 'Help Meeeeeee!' all at once" reported Lt. Take-Emin Andbookem, head of security for the event. "And you wouldn't believe the volume! I've still got six people in the hospital, getting checked for hearing damage."
The event's organizers have reported that the badges will be reissued -- without RFID chips, this time -- and that the homogenized melted-together masses of the other badges will be made into holiday mobiles which will also feature unused AOL 9.0 CDs and old 30-pin memory SIMMs.
"Flo Fox" my keester! Given the location (Slidell), that's gotta be Ronnie Scelson in drag!!
Maybe outsourcing all those electronic engineering and manufacturing jobs offshore wasn't such a good idea after all...
I wouldn't know about the licensing. I suspect, in many cases, it was covered by/included with the machine that it was responsible for controlling. I only did computing support at Boeing; Another division was responsible for software and license procurement.
It may surprise a lot of folks to know that good ole' DOS is still widely used, and wildly popular, in industrial and engineering environments. And why not? Very small footprint, mature and stable, relatively easy to program for, great for embedded stuff, and loads of 'net-based software archives Out There with enough handy applications and programmig tools to choke a goat.
During my tenure at Boeing, I saw a number of CNC (Computer Numerical Control) machine-control applications in the factory that were all DOS-based. In the electronics labs, many design or data-acquisition tools are DOS-based. And here, in my home lab, I've got a blort-load of radio service software that requires a pure DOS platform or it simply won't run.
"Retired" OS's are popular for a variety of reasons, just as older test equipment is often favored over much newer stuff. One of those reasons is that the underlying principles of what you're trying to do never change: Only the degree of complexity needed to get it done does.
I seem to be one of the few who thought the new BSG was not only unworthy of the name, but sucked better than a shop-vac with a fresh filter.
Have we all forgotten the way SciFi cancelled 'Farscape' despite its #1 ratings, claiming that it was "too expensive?"
Now, we have a (no doubt -very- expensive) remake of a 70's series that, while it may not have been the greatest thing since sliced bread, did have some rare gems among the episodes ("War of the Gods," with Patrick McNee as the -- very classy, IMO -- villian, Count Iblis, comes immediately to mind).
Where do you think the money to do the new BSG came from?
The original BSG series had a core story to it (the "Lost 13th Tribe") and, I think, had enormous potential that was left undeveloped by the time the series was cancelled. If they'd had better writing -- perhaps even let some of the key actors develop episodes, as has been done with 'Stargate: SG1' -- it would have been much better, and might even have lasted another few seasons.
The new BSG, however, seems to be depending on CGI effects, gratuitous sex, and a "grunge" look to sell itself. As if that weren't hollow enough, they stole the coordinate system from 'Star Trek' ("Cylon fighters coming in at 70 mark 114," or something to that effect), and the ship-to-ship radio sound effects from 'Star Wars' (the kind of hollow effect you hear on the radio voices, indicative of single sideband transmission).
The uniforms look like a weird cross between those used by the 'Eastern Alliance' in the old BSG series and those in 'Starship Troopers' (the movie), and they even stole sound effects (engines, mainly) for the vipers from the old series.
Maybe I'm just showing my age, but the BSG remake made the (very short) list of movies and TV shows that have made me feel physically ill (as in nauseous). Honestly, I think Richard Hatch and Glenn Larson should team up and sue the collective pants off SciFi for this unwarranted massacre.
Make it a series? The very thought makes my skin crawl. Given a choice between the new BSG and 'Farscape,' I'd welcome Moya and her crew back any day.
Let me first say that any sort of DDoS or other such abusive activity speaks pretty badly of those doing the abusing.
With that firmly in mind, I think I can sum up SCO's current situation in five simple words.
'They brought it on themselves.'
For the Nov. 23rd strip, Illiad (http://ars.userfriendly.org) came up with 'Dalek McBride' in all his tin glory, shouting "Lit-I-Gate... LIT-I-GATE!!!" I guess the real 'Dalek McBride' hasn't learned yet that pissing people off is not a good way to run a business (unless, that is, he's trying to run it into the ground).
3E7 quatloos says that SCO will be filing for Chapter 11 within three years.
Google for 'honeypot' or 'proxypot.' In fact, Security Focus ran a series of comprehensive articles on honeypots, one of which is here. There's also a huge web site devoted to nothing but honeypots at this link.
Proxypots are a variation of the honeypot idea. A proxypot pretends to be an open proxy server which, instead of actually passing traffic sent to it, simply logs what's going on and sends the actual traffic to a specific destination specified by the proxypot operator. This can be Dave Null's in-box or anywhere else said operator wants.
Details of proxypots may be found here, and here, just to name a couple.
Keep the peace(es).
"well watch soon the spammers will sue you for blocking their spam as it blocks legally protected interstate trade..."
I don't think so.
My server farm is still my own. I pay monthly fees for the bandwidth and electricity it consumes, and I pay out-of-pocket for the repairs if something breaks.
I'm the one who decides what traffic I will accept into our domains, and what traffic I will not. I am accountable in this ONLY to myself and two other users.
When Uncle Sam decides to start paying me to run that server farm, THEN, and ONLY then, will I allow ANYone other than the three of us to have a say in what traffic comes through.
Until that day comes, I will do whatever I believe is necessary to protect our private property from intrusion by unsolicited advertising, just as I would take steps to protect the front side of our house from becoming a billboard.
Period.
Cellphone jammers are a bad idea on several levels. I'm just waiting to see the news story about someone who has a heart attack or epileptic seizure hit, and that the victim died because someone tried to use their cellphone to call for help, but said phone was within range of a jamming device.
I suspect it would be reported that the few extra seconds (or minutes) taken for the caller to get out of range of said device, and call for help, could have made all the difference in the world.
Take that another way: What if someone's within range of one of these things, and someone tries to call them to let them know that their wife or roomie or whoever has been critically injured, or fallen seriously ill? Seems to me that whoever's operating the jammer under such conditions could be in for some serious litigation.
Another example. Lots of firefighters and paramedics are beginning to depend on cellphones for much of their communications. I can only imagine the consequences if someone in the area is operating a jammer.
I know others have posted that they'd like to jam something "just within ten feet" of themselves, but -- news flash! -- a jamming signal, by its very nature, cannot be limited in this way. In the world of RF, when you radiate a signal, it's going to radiate all over the place. The only way you can control where it goes is to put a Faraday cage (read: shielded enclosure) around the area you want to irradiate (and I think people would look mighty silly walking around in copper-mesh suits, with their 'tail' of a grounding wire).
In other words: Any signal powerful enough to overcome a cellphone's normal exchange with a nearby cell site is going to have to be powerful enough to radiate a lot further than ten feet, period.
A REAL solution to the problem would be (guess what?) education and attitude adjustment. Get people to the point where turning their phones OFF (or at least putting them into 'Silent Ring' mode) is a reflex action for restaurants, movie theaters, etc. Start such teaching early ("Responsible Cellphone Use 101" anyone?), perhaps including it as part of common courtesy and manners, and it'll be something that's useful for life.
Cellphone users really need a strong reminder that their world is not going to collapse if they don't catch every call the millisecond it comes in. At the rate we're going, I won't be surprised to learn that "cellphone addiction" becomes a very real medical or psychological disorder in times to come.