Now when that happens, the person who stole it can answer and say "thanks for unlocking your phone!"
...if the parent's claim were actually true. It's not.
Well, that's good to hear.
(as an aside: I shall no longer consider Brilthor a reliable source. Do you hear that Brilthor? Your credibility has been attacked by cduffy!
Except that cduffy is absolutely correct; Brilthor is incorrect.
n.b. I own a Blackberry, I just walked over to my co-worker's desk and tested both security work-arounds. The Emergency Call / Double Tap feature worked as advertised; it brought me to his favourites. Calling the iPhone and ending the call brought me back to the "Slide to unlock" screen.
So until an addendum to Brilthor's claim is presented that actually works, I'll continue knowing that they're wrong - UID notwithstanding.
Firefox 3 is not worth it from my experience. It's crashed 3 times to the point where it wipes out all my settings and I have to reconfigure everything, such as permitted sites with NoScript. It's crashed several more times where nothing was lost, but that still put its on the same level as IE.
On top of that, its handing of multiple windows seems to be very buggy. The bookmarks toolbar disappears and sometimes it won't let me into subfolders on the bookmarks menu. It also feels considerably more sluggish, and this is on a freshly formatted machine (only reason I "upgraded."). Among other issues, such as occasional problems with Gmail.
Next time I get a settings wipe I am probably just going to return to Firefox 2.
I know it's annoying, but have you tried uninstalling FF2, FF3 and wiping your profile folder? Sure you have to re-configure everything but that's cure #1 for the crash problems. Since my initial experience with FF3 closely mirrored yours and after I cleared my old profile I've never experienced a crash so you should be safe.
You do understand that only applies to pre recorded messages. Last time I checked you ccan't pank a message.
So look at the positive now all of our telemarketing calls are real people that we can screw with!
Thanks FTC for giving us more entertainment during extreme boredom.
Some time ago I got a pre-recorded message telling me I'd won a drastic discount on a cruise or trip or some such nonsense. The message gave me but one option; press 1 to talk to someone to arrange the details. No opt-out option except to hang up which, of course, would result in a repeat phone call until I pressed 1. So I pressed 1. The guy comes on the line and instantly he's into his sales pitch of congratulations, and oh happy day, and what name would you like to appear on your boarding pass? So I immediately request to be removed from their calling list as he responds with "Suck my f'ing d'k you f'ing {etc..}".
Great. Just what we need: more clueless induhviduals clogging up the various educational systems.
Instead of making a college education available to anyone (what is the REAL value of a Bachelors degree these days? Or do you have to have a Masters to stand out?), how about we restrict it to those with a demonstrated skill/passion for their subject of choice?
That's my ideal world. Forget money; we've all sat beside people in college / university whose parents were paying for their entire ride. These were often the ones lacking the skills, intellect and ambition and frequently showed up to class drunk (if at all).
Instead I believe we should have applied aptitude testing to decide what level of higher education a person should receive, if at all. If you don't hit the bottom rung of the ladder, well, someone has to make the sandwiches. If only people could understand and be happy about their tax dollars going to support the greater future of the nation even if their son/daughter can only achieve honours in the McDonald's University.
A) "Heh". You must be from the US, where smoking the green stuff at all is automatically equivalent to "drug abuse".
I must be lost, and I'm no American nor am I an American apologist but I can't find anywhere in AC's post where they in any way inferred drug abuse or any harm. They merely indicated that nbert's friend is slow at rolling his joints which, atleast to me, implies some experience on the subject.
To be fair, it has to be (according to my rules, which I'm making up now) within a decent sized city. Say > 250k inhabitants.
So in order to be fair, it must fit unfairly within an arbitrary set of limitations?:)
FWIW; I agree with the GP. The Canadian Shield trumps all. But if you want to get picky about it, you could always visit Algonquin Park - approximately 1,891,208 acres (or 7,653 km^2, or 2,955 in mi^2).
Sure, it's about 3 1/2 hours drive away from Toronto but it's a short 2 hour jaunt from Barrie, ON.
The problem with Canadian parks and reserves is that they're so fscking big they just plain can't fit inside our cities. Heck, you could put the entirety of Megacity Toronto (formerly the "GTA") inside Algonquin and still have a campsite remote enough you couldn't see the skyline.
I don't think that word means what you think it does. Addictive implies that if you stop doing it, you experience unpleasant side effects. It does not mean simply that doing it is pleasurable.
It means people get addicted to a feeling of euphoria and heightened relaxation and when they stop using the drug the reality of reality comes crashing back and a lot of people can't handle that. They learn to function "normally" when high so when they're not high they no longer understand how to function in the world.
For me, the deciding issue on anything I buy is the licence. What meets my needs is open standards, non-proprietary hardware, and free software. For me, the deciding issue with the OpenMoko is the fact that *I* will own the device, *I* can replace defective components, and that there will be software hackers out there who will provide the extra functionality that *I* will find useful.
I gave up on those ideals years ago when I realized they were just ideals and they were getting in the way of my productivity. Now, I'd just rather have something that works properly all the time. It's a cell phone, not a political platform.
For clarity's sake, what you're describing is perhaps a subconcious effect, but not a subliminal one. You don't *know* when you've been subjected to a subliminal message. From the GP:
I see ads ALL THE DAMN TIME, when I'm driving, or watching TV, or listening to the radio
Since the GP *knows* he sees the ads, they are, by definition, not subliminal.
On the other hand, one of the goals of advertisers is to always have those ads in front of you and I; the consumers. When you're driving and an advertisement comes on you're not always paying attention but you can be damn sure that ad is still getting into your brain somehow.
Though a poor choice of words, the OP was entirely correct in the idea that ads get into your brain and make you sub-consciously decide in favour of a particular product based on familiarity.
All you've really said is FF offers nothing for you. You are clearly an exception to the rule. The only people I know who still run IE do so out of ignorance of the option. Most people still just use "the browser" that came with the OS. You would be surprised how many people don't even realize they have an option. To that point, everyone I've introduced to FF still runs it.
Add me as another vote for that. Anybody who's not tech savvy that I've ever introduced to Firefox continue to run it because it's now "the browser".
There are people who steadfastly stick to IE because it's better, the best, or because Firefox sucks - but generally these are people who don't really understand anyways but as someone else said earlier they go with the familiar. They've used IE for years and therefore that is the Internet. Right down to that stupid "Click, clack" sound it makes as it loads elements on a page.
If I felt the need to research every argument made on Slashdot I'd have to change my lifestyle to one that no longer requires a source of income. Your argument - your onus to provide evidence.
As far as speed goes, you haven't NOTICED any problems. Did you actually benchmark your througput though? Hardware forums are filled with posts about these issues.
Yes, I've monitored the speed with and without SSID broadcast. If you're going to ask me to run a series of obscure tests to determine that a particular protocol or application will be affected by x percent 4 times out of 5 I'm sorry, I'm not interested.
Now, do you have any documentation that demonstrates that speeds are adversely affected by disabling SSID broadcast by an access point?
You're right... because the "intruder" does not take ANY PROPERTY AWAY from the wifi "provider/victim".
The case of wifi is very particular because the user pays a FIXED FEE. Not even plugging your tv on your neighbor's house would be equivalent.
What of bandwidth overage charges? What about limiting the user access to the full amount of bandwidth they're paying for in the first place? What about the fact that it's just a jackass thing to do?
How about this.. if you don't want your neighbors to be able to access or modify your WAP, then prevent your WAP from entering my house.
Does the same apply to my cordless phone, cell phone, wireless keyboard/mouse, baby monitor, garage door opener, remote control, bluetooth accessories or any of a plethora of wireless devices that exist?
Finally, let's be real. I can imagine no sitution in which a person savvy enough to even know what firmware is would leave their WAP wide-open without expecting somebody might use it. That is, we're talking an SSID of "Linksys," no WAP, no MAC filtering. This is either somebody who doesn't know, or doesn't care.
You're moralizing. If something is wrong or illegal when it's hard, it's likewise wrong or illegal when it's easy.
DHCP is a service that is offered after a connection is already made. If someone has DHCP turned off, then its ok to connect to the wireless signal?
Interesting question. I'd be less inclined to connect to a non-DHCP WAP because it's not going out of its way to permit you to use it.
While I'm relatively on the fence regarding open versus secured WAPs, I still think it's highly rude and inconsiderate to intentionally connect to someone else's Internet connection without prior consent whether DHCP is enabled or otherwise.
If your interface was pre-configured for the 192.168.0.0/24 subnet which seems to be the most commonly used on SOHO routers nowadays would that make it ok to browse their connection? What if they had wireless security enabled but it was so weak your computer bypassed it in a mere matter of seconds? What if what if what if... ?
See, this becomes a fine line people walk where they moralize / rationalize doing something wrong, illegal or grey because it's easy. Look at all the analogies that have popped up both for and against; people are struggling to justify their positions but what it comes down to is this; a plug and play hardware device, most likely purchased from a big box retail store, has been installed in a person's home. In most cases I'd wager that the majority of these devices are installed by people who do not understand wireless networking. My experience in a retail computer store confirmed that when I had to work for every home installation up-sell because people literally do not understand the risks and consequences involved in plugging in a default-configuration home router / access point.
The long and short of it is this; an access point is pre-programmed to do what it's told, and per default the absolutely vast majority of these devices are pre-programmed with defaults that make it EASY for the home user to get up and running. Any additional complexity such as wireless security, MAC address filtering, etc. will result in confusion, lack of understanding, support call overhead, and inevitably lots of product returns by people who just give up. That leads to a loss of revenue for the companies in question and that's decidedly bad for the bottom line. The catch 22 is that no company wants to be the first to introduce a high security (and therefore complex) wireless access point so consumers continue to purchase the regular insecure models in droves.
Now, here we have a situation where a very high percentage of home users out in the wilds of the urban jungle are operating insecure, wide-open wireless access points without knowing it. Since the people have not allowed implicit access to their network except for ignorance of technical facts and specifications, can we really assume their router is enough of an authority to redistribute their Internet access? I might add that in most all cases this re-distribution is actually a violation of the AUP which could actually get the people disconnected, suspended, or penalized in some way (capped, throttled, etc.) and/or cause them undue over-usage charges. Is this something we can actually moralize because a technical device handed out an IP address or SSID?!?
For decades, people have lived with VCRs that blinked 12:00 perpetually. Now, however, we have new technology that broadcasts the network equivalent of 12:00 to anybody within (antennae) ear-shot.
Myself, I've done it in a pinch, but atleast I know I was wrong to do it.
Yes, it is required. Without an SSID you can't connect, and the AP ends up broadcasting it anyway. Maybe you should read up on it, including the bandwidth issues that arise from telling the AP not to broadcast it often.
Can you fill in a little more detail or point me to a reference for same? My AP is set to not broadcast its SSID because I live in a dense area and I don't want to invite people to poke and prod at my network security.
I frequently transfer large files across my network, stream high definition video, etc. and haven't noticed any bandwidth problems. My computers, of course, are configured to connect to the correct SSID so other than a fairly typical few seconds delay in negotiating the WiFi connection and DHCP conversation I haven't noticed anything of concern.
On more than one occassion (Ok, on 2 occassions) I updated the guys firmware for him.
I'm going to have to agree with your other respondent; I'd be quite upset if you did that to any hardware on my network. Over the years I've encountered several incompatibilities with firmware on various devices and if some passer by had deigned to update it for me I'd find myself without connectivity or use of my own peripherals.
So in that case, it's like walking thru an open door, fixing a few things, taking a sip from the faucet, and walking out.
Likewise, what if the thing that was broken was part of an on-going investigation, vis domestic disturbance, break-in, or otherwise? What if it was one of those things that "adds character", or was intended to be fixed by a member of the household to make amends for a previous wrong-doing or what if the thing wasn't actually broken in the first place but was set up in a way that was particular to the owner's needs and desires?
It's a great attitude to want to be helpful, but forced, unrequested help can often be worse than the original problem.
You are free to do anything with any signal that reaches your property, including responding to it or blocking it altogether. I believe there are FCC rulings that back that up as well.
Firstly, most mail servers don't reject until you've sent the DATA, so that attack wouldn't work.
There's not really any solid definition of "most" any more. Every server I administer rejects at the RCPT TO portion of the exchange and it limits the number of attempts before it'll black hole the sending server for a period in order to throttle dictionary attacks and the like.
Secondly, they have a limit on the number of recipients anyway.
Most spammers nowadays have access to enough computing power and bandwidth that they're not at all worried about initiating individual connections for each and every address in their list. Or grouping it in 5s, 10s, or fishing to find the optimal limit for each recipient server.
Thirdly, no spammer is going to go to all that effort - they just spam every address on their 'list'.
Actually that's kind of the reason why spamming is so successful. See, computers are good at the very thing humans are bad at; routine, repetitive mundane iterations of the exact same task. Ask a human to manually verify 10 million lines of data? No thanks! Ask a computer to do the same and all you have to do is turn off the monitor and go home for the night. Better still; ask the computer to verify lines of data until you tell it to stop. Now add in a few dozen more computers. Now feed the task to a botnet with a few hundred (thousand) nodes.
You see, verified e-mail addresses are worth exponentially more to spammers than addresses that merely populate a list and computers are great at tabulating response data and ranking same. Has user (human) responded at this address? Perfect 10! High score! Move that to the expensive list! Has a machine auto-responded? Give that an 8 out of 10. Has a mail server accepted mail sent to this address? 6 out of 10. Does the address get rejected some of the time but accepted other times? Give 'er a 4. Does the address get rejected every time? Well, that'll be a 2, but leave it on the bulk list so we can still claim "xx million addresses" for sale.
It probably took me longer to type out that paragraph than it would take a spammers' computer farm to run through a few thousand iterations in their list.
The url, which is what you'd presume you were interested in being that you've gone to the address bar in the first place, it is hard to see because it's in a smaller font and a sickly green color.
Therein lies the difference between "what geeks want" and "what the rest of the world wants".
Normal people don't even know what a URL is let alone why they should be interested in it. I'm a geek, but I also work in the real world. When I want to recall a page I've recently visited I love the functionality. Let's see, the page was about that "abcde" and up it comes, easy as you please.
Except that large amounts of people live in apartment buildings where space is at a premium and loud noises are against the tenant rules.
Home Theatre doesn't necessarily mean loud. I live in a high rise condo and I have quite a powerful home theatre system. The solutions are actually pretty easy.
Don't attach the speakers to the walls. Or if you must, include some kind of insulating material (polyurethane foam or likewise).
Raise your floor-standing speakers with some kind of bass limiter. My towers have spike feet that accomplish this very well.
Program your receiver to limit the extremes of the highs and lows. Most call this "night mode", or "Dynamic Range Limiting" or similar. This is a fantastic setting for any movie that has quiet dialogue mixed with high impact special effects you don't get the negative effects of that loud crash or explosion, etc.
Last but certainly not least; don't exercise the full power of your system especially at off hours. A proper theatre installation should fill the room with sound and immerse you and your guests in the experience. It shouldn't make the windows rattle.
Usually an hour long episode of something from TV, like say lost, weighs in at around 350 MB, and a movie will be between 700 MB and 1.3 GB. The xbox content is around 6GB.
I probably wouldn't use this method for something like Planet Earth, but for normal movies its usually just fine.
You just have to download an H.264 encoded, 720p version of Planet Earth and you'd be hard pressed to find any quality problems. They'll weigh in somewhere around 2.5GB apiece.
My point was strictly about money. The assertion that it is cheaper to for friends to watch rented movies in a personal home theater than it is for those friends to go out to a movie is one that I just don't follow -- personally, I've got a fair bit of cash wrapped around some of the items in my living room (ala "home theater" in 2008-speak).
I never expect this stuff to pay for itself. They're TOYS, dammit, not investments.
Oh, absolutely. This is why I want an embargo on posts in these threads. Someone should really put a FAQ together.:)
The biggest problem with the entire cost argument is that on its face it's completely fallacious. Nobody buys a home theatre in order to have it pay for itself, nor does anybody not buy a home theatre simply because it won't "pay for itself".
People buy home theatres of course because those people want home theatres. Period, full stop, ack/fin, etc. The cost factor is an added side benefit in that, as I said, I can have a dozen people over to my place and it'll still only cost $4 to rent the movie thereby reducing the cost exponentially. If I can swing it that my guests will bring enough food, drinks and snacks to go around I'm getting something back for my "investment" in that I eat and drink for free, and maybe someone even brought the movie.
However during the 90% of the time when I'm not entertaining friends with a movie I still get to enjoy all the other benefits of a beautiful home theatre setup.
I'm not too good at math, so help me out: How many times does this have to happen before your home theater (including original purchase, time/money for installation and periodic setup, wear and tear, preventative maintenance, taxes, loss of use of part of your house, and popcorn) begins to pay for itself?
I know this is the popular rhetoric around these parts but I still don't comprehend it. Here we have a self proclaimed geek forum; a hangout for people who routinely spend weeks' and months' pay cheques on new computer and other electronic equipment but who can't see the beauty of a home theatre setup?
A few points to clarify why I wanted a home theatre for myself;
The only people in the room are there by my choice. Cell phone etiquette, crying babies, talking during the movies is all under my control.
There are no sticky floors, stained seats, spilled snacks, or in the extreme case fecal coliform bacteria to worry about.
I can pause, rewind, stop/resume the movie at any time for any reason.
I control the volume, effects and lighting.
I can have as few or as many friends, relatives or acquaintances over to enjoy the viewing as I please and the cost is not adversely affected.
When these people come over, it's common practise (tradition) to bring something along. Be it a case of beer, bottle of alcohol, light snacks or even a full dish of food for a proper meal.
Related to the above; we can choose what to eat and drink and when to do so. If we want to eat a proper sit-down meal before or after the movie it's at our leisure. If we then want to snack and drink alcohol or even tapwater during the performance all the better - it's our choice, it's quality food of our choosing and it doesn't come at an egregious cost.
With gas prices on the rise and continuing to do so it's not economically reasonable to drive a group, usually in multiple vehicles, to a restaurant, then to the theatre, then out for after-show entertainment then home again.
Furthermore, if we do consume too much alcohol during the evening we don't have to shell out and wait for a ride home. There are always sofas, pull out couches and spare bedrooms in which people can sleep it off.
When I'm not entertaining or watching movies, I can use my rig to better enjoy plain 'ol television. Say what you will about it, but there are a few shows I enjoy (I won't get into a qualitative discourse), there's also news and weather. In short, everything looks and sounds better on my rig.
I have a gaming system connected to my home theatre which brings the games to life and really enriches the experience.
When I'm not watching broadcast entertainment or playing games I have my computer connected to my system. Audio traverses to my dolby receiver digitally and my desktop measures 60" diagonally. You have no idea how nice it is to sit on a reclining sofa with a wireless keyboard and mouse and do... whatever. Banking, bill payments, web surfing, e-mail, etc.
As a plus to the above, any movies / television shows that I've missed and subsequently downloaded can be played directly to my theatre system.
There are definitely some cost savings benefits to the home theatre, but that's not the only benefit.
As to the costs associated; I choose what to buy (component wise) and when to buy it. Usually I'll find a piece or set of equipment I want then wait for a sale. I also make what I believe to be rational purchases; for example, I want a PlayStation 3 which will double as a high definition Blu Ray player, it'll play regular DVDs as well as take over as the home network media centre.
If done correctly you don't have to pay an arm and a leg to get a very good theatre setup and with 0% finance options at the big box stores you can leave your money in the bank earning interest while you pay small instalments. When you factor the cost of an evening's entertainment even for as few as t
Big-screen TVs and X.1 surround sound systems are becoming the norm in houses.
You have a very narrow view of "the norm".
I'd like to re-iterate the parent's point where they said "becoming" the norm. It's at a point now where a large screen (relatively speaking) and a surround sound system are about what people are expecting to pay, or in some cases only a few dollars more than just the basic necessities. Given the choice between a $149 DVD player or a Theatre In A Box surround setup that includes a DVD player for $199 - which would you choose?
Granted it is a slow, gradual process, but much like fuel injection in cars replaced carburetors, slowly big screens and surround sound are replacing 4:3 tubes and vanilla DVD player setups.
Oh I'll watch a movie, and even pay for the opportunity to do so, personally.
I just don't get worked up over DRM. Who cares? Saw the movie, don't need it on my hard drive.
Then how ever will you exercise your {$deity}-given right to retransmit them via Torrent?:)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's good to hear.
(as an aside: I shall no longer consider Brilthor a reliable source. Do you hear that Brilthor? Your credibility has been attacked by cduffy!
Except that cduffy is absolutely correct; Brilthor is incorrect.
n.b. I own a Blackberry, I just walked over to my co-worker's desk and tested both security work-arounds. The Emergency Call / Double Tap feature worked as advertised; it brought me to his favourites. Calling the iPhone and ending the call brought me back to the "Slide to unlock" screen.
So until an addendum to Brilthor's claim is presented that actually works, I'll continue knowing that they're wrong - UID notwithstanding.
Firefox 3 is not worth it from my experience. It's crashed 3 times to the point where it wipes out all my settings and I have to reconfigure everything, such as permitted sites with NoScript. It's crashed several more times where nothing was lost, but that still put its on the same level as IE.
On top of that, its handing of multiple windows seems to be very buggy. The bookmarks toolbar disappears and sometimes it won't let me into subfolders on the bookmarks menu. It also feels considerably more sluggish, and this is on a freshly formatted machine (only reason I "upgraded."). Among other issues, such as occasional problems with Gmail.
Next time I get a settings wipe I am probably just going to return to Firefox 2.
I know it's annoying, but have you tried uninstalling FF2, FF3 and wiping your profile folder? Sure you have to re-configure everything but that's cure #1 for the crash problems. Since my initial experience with FF3 closely mirrored yours and after I cleared my old profile I've never experienced a crash so you should be safe.
You do understand that only applies to pre recorded messages. Last time I checked you ccan't pank a message.
So look at the positive now all of our telemarketing calls are real people that we can screw with!
Thanks FTC for giving us more entertainment during extreme boredom.
Some time ago I got a pre-recorded message telling me I'd won a drastic discount on a cruise or trip or some such nonsense. The message gave me but one option; press 1 to talk to someone to arrange the details. No opt-out option except to hang up which, of course, would result in a repeat phone call until I pressed 1. So I pressed 1. The guy comes on the line and instantly he's into his sales pitch of congratulations, and oh happy day, and what name would you like to appear on your boarding pass? So I immediately request to be removed from their calling list as he responds with "Suck my f'ing d'k you f'ing {etc..}".
Great. Just what we need: more clueless induhviduals clogging up the various educational systems.
Instead of making a college education available to anyone (what is the REAL value of a Bachelors degree these days? Or do you have to have a Masters to stand out?), how about we restrict it to those with a demonstrated skill/passion for their subject of choice?
That's my ideal world. Forget money; we've all sat beside people in college / university whose parents were paying for their entire ride. These were often the ones lacking the skills, intellect and ambition and frequently showed up to class drunk (if at all).
Instead I believe we should have applied aptitude testing to decide what level of higher education a person should receive, if at all. If you don't hit the bottom rung of the ladder, well, someone has to make the sandwiches. If only people could understand and be happy about their tax dollars going to support the greater future of the nation even if their son/daughter can only achieve honours in the McDonald's University.
I must be lost, and I'm no American nor am I an American apologist but I can't find anywhere in AC's post where they in any way inferred drug abuse or any harm. They merely indicated that nbert's friend is slow at rolling his joints which, atleast to me, implies some experience on the subject.
To be fair, it has to be (according to my rules, which I'm making up now) within a decent sized city. Say > 250k inhabitants.
So in order to be fair, it must fit unfairly within an arbitrary set of limitations? :)
FWIW; I agree with the GP. The Canadian Shield trumps all. But if you want to get picky about it, you could always visit Algonquin Park - approximately 1,891,208 acres (or 7,653 km^2, or 2,955 in mi^2).
Sure, it's about 3 1/2 hours drive away from Toronto but it's a short 2 hour jaunt from Barrie, ON.
The problem with Canadian parks and reserves is that they're so fscking big they just plain can't fit inside our cities. Heck, you could put the entirety of Megacity Toronto (formerly the "GTA") inside Algonquin and still have a campsite remote enough you couldn't see the skyline.
The effects of the drug are addictive
I don't think that word means what you think it does. Addictive implies that if you stop doing it, you experience unpleasant side effects. It does not mean simply that doing it is pleasurable.
It means people get addicted to a feeling of euphoria and heightened relaxation and when they stop using the drug the reality of reality comes crashing back and a lot of people can't handle that. They learn to function "normally" when high so when they're not high they no longer understand how to function in the world.
For me, the deciding issue on anything I buy is the licence. What meets my needs is open standards, non-proprietary hardware, and free software. For me, the deciding issue with the OpenMoko is the fact that *I* will own the device, *I* can replace defective components, and that there will be software hackers out there who will provide the extra functionality that *I* will find useful.
I gave up on those ideals years ago when I realized they were just ideals and they were getting in the way of my productivity. Now, I'd just rather have something that works properly all the time. It's a cell phone, not a political platform.
For clarity's sake, what you're describing is perhaps a subconcious effect, but not a subliminal one. You don't *know* when you've been subjected to a subliminal message. From the GP:
Since the GP *knows* he sees the ads, they are, by definition, not subliminal.
On the other hand, one of the goals of advertisers is to always have those ads in front of you and I; the consumers. When you're driving and an advertisement comes on you're not always paying attention but you can be damn sure that ad is still getting into your brain somehow.
Though a poor choice of words, the OP was entirely correct in the idea that ads get into your brain and make you sub-consciously decide in favour of a particular product based on familiarity.
All you've really said is FF offers nothing for you. You are clearly an exception to the rule. The only people I know who still run IE do so out of ignorance of the option. Most people still just use "the browser" that came with the OS. You would be surprised how many people don't even realize they have an option. To that point, everyone I've introduced to FF still runs it.
Add me as another vote for that. Anybody who's not tech savvy that I've ever introduced to Firefox continue to run it because it's now "the browser".
There are people who steadfastly stick to IE because it's better, the best, or because Firefox sucks - but generally these are people who don't really understand anyways but as someone else said earlier they go with the familiar. They've used IE for years and therefore that is the Internet. Right down to that stupid "Click, clack" sound it makes as it loads elements on a page.
If I felt the need to research every argument made on Slashdot I'd have to change my lifestyle to one that no longer requires a source of income. Your argument - your onus to provide evidence.
As far as speed goes, you haven't NOTICED any problems. Did you actually benchmark your througput though? Hardware forums are filled with posts about these issues.Yes, I've monitored the speed with and without SSID broadcast. If you're going to ask me to run a series of obscure tests to determine that a particular protocol or application will be affected by x percent 4 times out of 5 I'm sorry, I'm not interested.
Now, do you have any documentation that demonstrates that speeds are adversely affected by disabling SSID broadcast by an access point?
What of bandwidth overage charges? What about limiting the user access to the full amount of bandwidth they're paying for in the first place? What about the fact that it's just a jackass thing to do?
Does the same apply to my cordless phone, cell phone, wireless keyboard/mouse, baby monitor, garage door opener, remote control, bluetooth accessories or any of a plethora of wireless devices that exist?
Finally, let's be real. I can imagine no sitution in which a person savvy enough to even know what firmware is would leave their WAP wide-open without expecting somebody might use it. That is, we're talking an SSID of "Linksys," no WAP, no MAC filtering. This is either somebody who doesn't know, or doesn't care.You're moralizing. If something is wrong or illegal when it's hard, it's likewise wrong or illegal when it's easy.
Interesting question. I'd be less inclined to connect to a non-DHCP WAP because it's not going out of its way to permit you to use it.
While I'm relatively on the fence regarding open versus secured WAPs, I still think it's highly rude and inconsiderate to intentionally connect to someone else's Internet connection without prior consent whether DHCP is enabled or otherwise.
If your interface was pre-configured for the 192.168.0.0/24 subnet which seems to be the most commonly used on SOHO routers nowadays would that make it ok to browse their connection? What if they had wireless security enabled but it was so weak your computer bypassed it in a mere matter of seconds? What if what if what if ... ?
See, this becomes a fine line people walk where they moralize / rationalize doing something wrong, illegal or grey because it's easy. Look at all the analogies that have popped up both for and against; people are struggling to justify their positions but what it comes down to is this; a plug and play hardware device, most likely purchased from a big box retail store, has been installed in a person's home. In most cases I'd wager that the majority of these devices are installed by people who do not understand wireless networking. My experience in a retail computer store confirmed that when I had to work for every home installation up-sell because people literally do not understand the risks and consequences involved in plugging in a default-configuration home router / access point.
The long and short of it is this; an access point is pre-programmed to do what it's told, and per default the absolutely vast majority of these devices are pre-programmed with defaults that make it EASY for the home user to get up and running. Any additional complexity such as wireless security, MAC address filtering, etc. will result in confusion, lack of understanding, support call overhead, and inevitably lots of product returns by people who just give up. That leads to a loss of revenue for the companies in question and that's decidedly bad for the bottom line. The catch 22 is that no company wants to be the first to introduce a high security (and therefore complex) wireless access point so consumers continue to purchase the regular insecure models in droves.
Now, here we have a situation where a very high percentage of home users out in the wilds of the urban jungle are operating insecure, wide-open wireless access points without knowing it. Since the people have not allowed implicit access to their network except for ignorance of technical facts and specifications, can we really assume their router is enough of an authority to redistribute their Internet access? I might add that in most all cases this re-distribution is actually a violation of the AUP which could actually get the people disconnected, suspended, or penalized in some way (capped, throttled, etc.) and/or cause them undue over-usage charges. Is this something we can actually moralize because a technical device handed out an IP address or SSID?!?
For decades, people have lived with VCRs that blinked 12:00 perpetually. Now, however, we have new technology that broadcasts the network equivalent of 12:00 to anybody within (antennae) ear-shot.
Myself, I've done it in a pinch, but atleast I know I was wrong to do it.
Can you fill in a little more detail or point me to a reference for same? My AP is set to not broadcast its SSID because I live in a dense area and I don't want to invite people to poke and prod at my network security.
I frequently transfer large files across my network, stream high definition video, etc. and haven't noticed any bandwidth problems. My computers, of course, are configured to connect to the correct SSID so other than a fairly typical few seconds delay in negotiating the WiFi connection and DHCP conversation I haven't noticed anything of concern.
I'm going to have to agree with your other respondent; I'd be quite upset if you did that to any hardware on my network. Over the years I've encountered several incompatibilities with firmware on various devices and if some passer by had deigned to update it for me I'd find myself without connectivity or use of my own peripherals.
So in that case, it's like walking thru an open door, fixing a few things, taking a sip from the faucet, and walking out.Likewise, what if the thing that was broken was part of an on-going investigation, vis domestic disturbance, break-in, or otherwise? What if it was one of those things that "adds character", or was intended to be fixed by a member of the household to make amends for a previous wrong-doing or what if the thing wasn't actually broken in the first place but was set up in a way that was particular to the owner's needs and desires?
It's a great attitude to want to be helpful, but forced, unrequested help can often be worse than the original problem.
Cite please.
There's not really any solid definition of "most" any more. Every server I administer rejects at the RCPT TO portion of the exchange and it limits the number of attempts before it'll black hole the sending server for a period in order to throttle dictionary attacks and the like.
Secondly, they have a limit on the number of recipients anyway.Most spammers nowadays have access to enough computing power and bandwidth that they're not at all worried about initiating individual connections for each and every address in their list. Or grouping it in 5s, 10s, or fishing to find the optimal limit for each recipient server.
Thirdly, no spammer is going to go to all that effort - they just spam every address on their 'list'.Actually that's kind of the reason why spamming is so successful. See, computers are good at the very thing humans are bad at; routine, repetitive mundane iterations of the exact same task. Ask a human to manually verify 10 million lines of data? No thanks! Ask a computer to do the same and all you have to do is turn off the monitor and go home for the night. Better still; ask the computer to verify lines of data until you tell it to stop. Now add in a few dozen more computers. Now feed the task to a botnet with a few hundred (thousand) nodes.
You see, verified e-mail addresses are worth exponentially more to spammers than addresses that merely populate a list and computers are great at tabulating response data and ranking same. Has user (human) responded at this address? Perfect 10! High score! Move that to the expensive list! Has a machine auto-responded? Give that an 8 out of 10. Has a mail server accepted mail sent to this address? 6 out of 10. Does the address get rejected some of the time but accepted other times? Give 'er a 4. Does the address get rejected every time? Well, that'll be a 2, but leave it on the bulk list so we can still claim "xx million addresses" for sale.
It probably took me longer to type out that paragraph than it would take a spammers' computer farm to run through a few thousand iterations in their list.
Therein lies the difference between "what geeks want" and "what the rest of the world wants".
Normal people don't even know what a URL is let alone why they should be interested in it. I'm a geek, but I also work in the real world. When I want to recall a page I've recently visited I love the functionality. Let's see, the page was about that "abcde" and up it comes, easy as you please.
Home Theatre doesn't necessarily mean loud. I live in a high rise condo and I have quite a powerful home theatre system. The solutions are actually pretty easy.
I probably wouldn't use this method for something like Planet Earth, but for normal movies its usually just fine.
You just have to download an H.264 encoded, 720p version of Planet Earth and you'd be hard pressed to find any quality problems. They'll weigh in somewhere around 2.5GB apiece.
I never expect this stuff to pay for itself. They're TOYS, dammit, not investments.
Oh, absolutely. This is why I want an embargo on posts in these threads. Someone should really put a FAQ together. :)
The biggest problem with the entire cost argument is that on its face it's completely fallacious. Nobody buys a home theatre in order to have it pay for itself, nor does anybody not buy a home theatre simply because it won't "pay for itself".
People buy home theatres of course because those people want home theatres. Period, full stop, ack/fin, etc. The cost factor is an added side benefit in that, as I said, I can have a dozen people over to my place and it'll still only cost $4 to rent the movie thereby reducing the cost exponentially. If I can swing it that my guests will bring enough food, drinks and snacks to go around I'm getting something back for my "investment" in that I eat and drink for free, and maybe someone even brought the movie.
However during the 90% of the time when I'm not entertaining friends with a movie I still get to enjoy all the other benefits of a beautiful home theatre setup.
I'm not too good at math, so help me out: How many times does this have to happen before your home theater (including original purchase, time/money for installation and periodic setup, wear and tear, preventative maintenance, taxes, loss of use of part of your house, and popcorn) begins to pay for itself?
I know this is the popular rhetoric around these parts but I still don't comprehend it. Here we have a self proclaimed geek forum; a hangout for people who routinely spend weeks' and months' pay cheques on new computer and other electronic equipment but who can't see the beauty of a home theatre setup?
A few points to clarify why I wanted a home theatre for myself;
There are definitely some cost savings benefits to the home theatre, but that's not the only benefit.
As to the costs associated; I choose what to buy (component wise) and when to buy it. Usually I'll find a piece or set of equipment I want then wait for a sale. I also make what I believe to be rational purchases; for example, I want a PlayStation 3 which will double as a high definition Blu Ray player, it'll play regular DVDs as well as take over as the home network media centre.
If done correctly you don't have to pay an arm and a leg to get a very good theatre setup and with 0% finance options at the big box stores you can leave your money in the bank earning interest while you pay small instalments. When you factor the cost of an evening's entertainment even for as few as t
I'd like to re-iterate the parent's point where they said "becoming" the norm. It's at a point now where a large screen (relatively speaking) and a surround sound system are about what people are expecting to pay, or in some cases only a few dollars more than just the basic necessities. Given the choice between a $149 DVD player or a Theatre In A Box surround setup that includes a DVD player for $199 - which would you choose?
Granted it is a slow, gradual process, but much like fuel injection in cars replaced carburetors, slowly big screens and surround sound are replacing 4:3 tubes and vanilla DVD player setups.
Then how ever will you exercise your {$deity}-given right to retransmit them via Torrent? :)
Er, sorry, I mean Linux distributions ...